Silliness and Cultural Relativism
I have a problem with Cultural Relativism. Although this theory has indeed served the purpose of contradicting justifications within the academia for the dominion of some supposedly more advanced cultures over other “primitive” ones, it is simply not sensible to accept it as a correct and adequate basis for understanding societies. Here is why:
An idea cannot be self-contradictory and remain true. Cultural Relativism brings forth the idea that no culture can be better than another - something that at first sounds nice, warm, and politically correct. This is a perspective that is supposed to give us and egalitarian view of the world. Nevertheless, if no culture or society can ever be better than another, this in fact means that efforts towards social change actually gain nothing, even if effective, as the new order attained is supposed to be just as good (or bad) as any other. Such a view in fact destroys the idea of progress; the notion that positive change can be promoted and achieved. However, since it can be supposed that Cultural Relativism arises as a new way of looking at society, it is in fact aiming at change, and if this theory thinks of itself as meaningful at all, then it can be said that it aims at positive change - it seeks to be a tool for humanity to better its understanding of the world. In other words, it seeks progress. Unfortunately, as this theory destroys the idea of progress in the way that has already been explained, it renders itself useless and unable to attain what it originally should have. Indeed, this theory self-destructs, as in denying the idea of progress it implies that its own existence is indifferent, as nothing “better” can be attained through it. Furthermore, as it both upholds the idea of progress (through its mere existence) and at same time destroys this idea through its content, it is undeniably self-contradictory. Cultural Relativism can thus hardly be a coherent way of looking at the world and the differences between human societies.
Some people think that Cultural Relativism is useful given that it is difficult to reach a consensus about which societal views are superior to others, but such a position cannot be anything less than sheer dishonesty. If an idea is not true, it should very simply not be accepted. Rather, let Cultural Relativism die a pitiless death, and allow civil debate about the various merits of our different civilizations to enrich us all.
That would be true progress.
A Series of Unfortunate Events
I just finished watching
A Series of Unfortunate Events, and I must say that the title of this movie could hardly be more appropriate. I should have taken the hint before buying the ticket, or even later when the narrator entreated the audience to leave the theater. Why, oh why, didn't I listen to him? I only have myself to blame, I guess. This movie delivers exactly what it promises: a series of very, very unfortunate events - for the viewers.
Dear readers, please,
please stay away from this unimaginative, badly acted, horribly put together marketing scam masquerading as a film. You've been warned.
A Thought on Christmas
(from
The Everlasting Man by G.K. Chesterton)
This sketch of the human story began in a cave; the cave which popular science associates with the cave-man and in which practical discovery has really found archaic drawings of animals. The second half of human history, which was like a new creation of the world, also begins in a cave. There is even a shadow of such a fancy in the fact that animals were again present; for it was a cave used as a stable by the mountaineers of the uplands about Bethlehem; who still drive their cattle into such holes and caverns at night. It was here that a homeless couple had crept underground with the cattle when the doors of the crowded caravanserai had been shut in their faces; and it was here beneath the very feet of the passers-by, in a cellar under the very floor of the world, that Jesus Christ was born. But in that second creation there was indeed something symbolical in the roots of the primeval rock or the horns of the prehistoric herd. God also was a Cave-Man, and had also traced strange shapes of creatures, curiously coloured, upon the wall of the world; but the pictures that he made had come to life.
About the Two Posts Below
The two essays that I have just posted are just a small fraction of the many end-of-semester tasks that have kept me away from my blog for the past few weeks. Although I realize that very few people would actually want to read them, I posted them up for a couple of reasons. First, they are to stand as proof that I
have been writing quite a bit, despite what my recently negligent attitude towards my blog may suggest. Secondly, I'd like to help out fellow students who may need ideas for writing about these topics in the future. Thirdly, at three in the morning this seemed like a good idea. Finally, I just
know that there are nerds big enough out there to actually want to read this type of stuff.
Make Up Your Mind
We love babies. They're cute and cuddly and they make us talk like idiots. Fetuses? Well, fetuses we don't seem to mind aborting. And yet, are we really that sure of the difference between the two? The media reaction to the murder of Bobbie Jo Stinnett and the subsequent theft of her baby?/fetus? is revealing the pathetic confusion within the pro-"choice" world about what constitutes a human being and what is supposedly nothing but a "clump of cells." An article by Rich Lowry on National Review deals with this linguistic confusion in a pretty poignant way. I encourage you to read the whole thing (but in case you're too lazy, I have attached some excerpts below). One just has to wonder, for how long are pro-choicers going to continue in this appalling state of denial? Lowry says:
During the coverage of the crime, the status of the Bobbie Jo Stinnett's unborn girl steadily changed. All at once on AOL News during the weekend, there were headlines tracking events in the case: "Woman Slain, Fetus Stolen"; "Woman Arrested, Baby Returned in Bizarre Murder"; "Infant in Good Health." Note how a "fetus" something for which American law and culture has very little respect was somehow instantly transformed into a "baby" and "infant" for which we have the highest respect. By what strange alchemy does that happen?
An AP story effected this magic transition all in one sentence: "Authorities said Montgomery, 36, confessed to strangling Bobbie Jo Stinnett of Skidmore, Mo., on Thursday, cutting out the fetus and taking the baby back to Kansas." At one point, when Montgomery was still at large, an Amber Alert went out about the Stinnett girl, putting news organizations in the strange position of reporting such an alert for what many of them were still calling a "fetus."
Given that fetuses are routinely destroyed in America (and legally can be destroyed up to the point of delivery), it was odd to see such an uproar about the welfare of one. Indeed, it is tempting to say that from a pure legal point of view, Lisa Montgomery simply killed the wrong victim, taking the life of the mom instead of the fetus.
But that's not entirely true. Earlier this year Congress passed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act partly in reaction to the Peterson case, making it a crime to harm an unborn baby while assaulting the mother. Kate Michelman, president of NARAL, complained that President Bush is doing "everything in his power to restrict a woman's right to choose." Right to choose what? To have her baby harmed by an assailant?
(...)When we mourn not just for the women, but for the babies destroyed in such terrible acts, we commit a kind of transgression against the strictest pro-choice orthodoxy. Pro-choicers have a hard time explaining why, if Bill Clinton was right that abortion should be "legal, safe and rare," the practice should be rare. One reason is that there is a continuity between the "fetus" and "baby."
Otherwise, why do we rejoice over ultrasound images of the unborn? Why do we give them names? Why do we pray for their health and happiness? Why are we so quick to go from calling them fetuses to babies?
Chilly Philly
Weather.com says that it feels like -4 degrees Fahrenheit with the windchill, that is -20 Celsius. These my friends, are temperatures people from the tropics like me don't even understand. You might as well tell me that its negative Gazillion degrees out there and it would sound the same to me (it certainly
feels that cold!). In other words: I LOVE THE WINTER!!!
Some Christmas humor from yours truly...
I'm Back
Some way or another, it seems that I survived last week. Some highlights include virtually spending the weekend at the library and writing a nine page "historiographical analysis" of the European revolutions of 1848 (between Sunday at 11:30 p.m. and Monday at 10:40 a.m., mind you). But in any case, the important thing is that I made it. I'm still considering, however, whether I should turn last night's events into an epic poem. All the necessary elements are there, though given the quality of my paper, the prospects don't look promising for the hero. In any case, until the onslaught of finals (or "semifinals," I guess, since this is my penultimate semester as an undergrad... Get it? Get it?) I hope to be posting more frequently than I have during the past couple of weeks, so check back in soon for new stuff. Later!
