>>6364003 Yes it was but the book itself is filled with bad history, eurocentrism and is racist as fuck because of it. He basically argues that all non-europeans were savages but it totally wasn't their fault. Its well meaning but racist
>>6364290 i haven't read it but the basic argument of eurasia being the only area with a big east-west axis enabling trade across one climatic area and europe being a large collection of peninsulas which fuels the development of different means of transportation etc seemed quite solid
>>6365157 Like arse. You'll find that all those "critical" geographers are actually liberal lickspittles, and support reductivist accounts that reproduce the hierarchy of knowledge formally and substantively.
This is true but objections on these grounds basically boil down to the fact that as >>6364117 states, the Nazis used the same arguments, thus causing any scholars who were cited as promoting the environmental determinism to be discredited in the field. To be fair, one of the most frequently referenced environmental determinist geographers, Friedrich Ratzel, was pronouncedly racist.
All of this eventually lead to Geography being dominated in part by Marxist scholarship and in part by Foucault fans years down the road but that's a completely different story. At present it's a very ideologically motivated and in some ways cringe-inducingly anti-intellectual field of study.
>>6365164 >tfw liberal lickspittle critical geography >tfw wasting my life supporting reductivist accounts that reproduce the hierarchy of knowledge formally and substantively >tfw /lit/ is no longer a safe space
>>6364290 >>6365179 Jared Diamond is basically addressing world history up to 1492: why and how was it that Europeans could and would build global empires and that other peoples would be ill-equipped to resist, let alone compete? A lot of people have criticized the answers he came up with, but the "anti-racist" camp is basically just hurt that he would ask the question.
>>6366909 Feel free to laugh at their beliefs, but your concept of "science" is hollow and dogmatic and will eventually get you into trouble.
>>6366931 While I agree that the term "reactionary" has been over-used and mis-used, given the impossibility of returning to an ancien regime even as an ideological fantasy, the term is now as full of political life as "anti-disestablishmentarianism"
>>6364290 >He basically argues that all non-europeans were savages but it totally wasn't their fault. Its well meaning but racist
Give me a break, stop trying to attach value judgments to facts. He states, 100% accurately, that people who are born inheriting a wealth of valuable minerals and fertile land are inevitably going to rape the people who don't, and those who aren't born with those aren't going to be able to support a population capable of rivaling the ones that do.
The only reason you're not in the woods worshipping rocks is because agriculturalism and monopolization of property made traditional family roles obsolete. Deal with it and stop believing in spooks.
>>6363954 The author's argument isn't racist. That is absurd.
He may be wrong, and is, on many points but he isn't racist. Not every area in the world is best suited to help human life flourish. If you for whatever reason woke up in the ocean or on top of a mountain, you would have a harder time doing anything compared to waking up next to a freshwater river. There are many other factors that can help human life flourish, and understanding that can help us understand our history.
It's important to question and deconstruct arguments such as 2+2=4 and look at ways in which those arguments, which are based purely in ideology, may potentially be wrong. You could argue that universal, unquestioning acceptance of 2+2=4 as fact is based in a hegemonic concept of mathematics.
>>6368083 >>6368054 There's only one group of people in the world which doesn't possess what we think of as mathematics, and turns out they have no way of manipulating quantities such that they always get cheated in trade deals and think it's magic.
>>6367209 Your statement about valuable minerals, or what I would more broadly classify as material needs, seems to miss the point. Diamond tuned to the example of the Industrial Revolution in the UK because it illustrated how scarcity had incentivized the creation of new technologies. It was this cycle that tuned them from a threatened supply of timber for heating needs towards coal powered technology. He then turns to societies, namely those in Africa that would one day come to fear European technology, as being beneficiaries of plentiful material wealth. And because of this, because of the levels of scarcity that they nominally did not face, incentives were not there to propel new technologies.
Im speaking in broad strokes with regards to Diamond's thesis here, and can agree that the other poster is being inflammatory for branding--what appears to me at least--earnest sociology as racist though.
>>6369205 There's a balance. Diamond points out that cultures in places like New Guinea have to put so much effort into just gathering daily food supplies that they have no time left over to come up with things like farming. He also points to a lack of draft animal nominees as a reason why farming doesn't take off in these regions.
>>6369231 Certainly it is about balance. Too much scarcity and a society is forced to shift from focusing on alternative technologies to merely surviving. But a sustained, yet dampened, threat to everyday activities does seem to breed a pattern of success. Or am I reading too deeply into this?
>>6369231 >He also points to a lack of draft animal nominees as a reason why farming doesn't take off in these regions.
How is that wrong? If a civilization wanted to farm having large and docile draft animals would make the process easier. It isnt a sufficient reason for why farming doesnt take place but it makes sense why animal labor is more beneficial than human labor for certain tasks while farming.
>>6370632 >mfw I dont give a shit why white and different than blacks - it's just life >mfw when leftist are so fucking desperate to find any kind of explanation to the absolute western dominance over africa
They are just perpetuating "the race war" with their shit
>>6370949 >Environmental determinism >the physical environment predisposes human social development towards particular trajectories >Racism >Modern variants are often based in social perceptions of biological differences between peoples
So environmental determinism can't be racist by definition
>"From the very beginning of my work with New Guineans, they impressed me as being on the average more intelligent, more alert, more expressive, and more interested in things and people around them than the average European or American is"
and again in reverse:
"From the very beginning of my work with Europeans, they impressed me as being on the average more intelligent, more alert, more expressive, and more interested in things and people around them than the average African or New Guinean is"
What evidence does he have to support his claim? Well he completely throws out decades of IQ testing in favor of some personal anecdotes and half baked theories
>>6371641 he does say it's genetic. how about you try reading a bit. one of his theories involves natural selection and it's effect on intelligence, specifically the natural selection of city dwellers vs hunter gatherer societies.
>>6372270 No, not everything is a social construct, but ethnicity bloody is.
"lactose" "sunlight" and a theory of skin disease are all not simple differences. They require cultural theories, my favourite one is "Western Science," observation, experiment, classification, typology.
They are not immediately apparent to simple observation (scientific realism), but are theoretically situated. And to my mind true. But theoretically situated. Similarly, they are not immediately "apparent," they aren't instruments that you can lift up and appropriate from reality without having a prior theory.
>>6372270 >Okay now you are just trolling. Differences are immediately apprehensible eh? Without a theoretical context eh? Ethnicity is being used as a code word for physical race eh? Get. A. Dog. Up. Yer.
>>6372284 >Evidence for theories are improper if they are not "apparent" (whatever that means) I'm not the anon you're addressing and I even agree to an extent that ethnicity is socially constructed (and sympathise with your presumed moral reasons for such theories) but your line of reasoning is extremely poor.
>>6372284 Can you please explain what any of this nonsense you are going on about has to do with the absurd claim that its 'naive' to say there are differences between different ethnicities.
Because quite beyond the easily observable differences in hair, eye and skin colour, height, build and so forth between different groups you do not need a 'cultural theory' to see what happens when a white person does not protect themselves from the sun.
>>6372334 Not bothering with you, you're functionally illiterate.
>>6372341 It isn't naïve to say that there are differences between ethnicities, it is naïve to believe
As if this is immediately apparent and not in fact a major theoretical conclusion, based off observations within a methodological frame.
> Because quite beyond the easily observable differences in hair, eye and skin colour, height, build and so forth between different groups you do not need a 'cultural theory' to see what happens when a white person does not protect themselves from the sun.
Which is strange, because that isn't ethnicity. That's "race." And these "observations" require a cultural conception of "whiteness" and "grouping".
Were you born this ignorant or did you work hard in bum-fuck Bible college?
Isn't the racist part that he doesn't give flying fuck whether different Peoples look at the World differently, and just naturaly assumes that domestication of animals and mercantalism and such, is things that every Culture would undertake, given the material circumstances to do so? In other words, he naturalizes a specific modern (western) ontology to be the core of human nature.
>>6372389 Yep. Remember, the first thing to look for is a simple "human nature" attack.
But wait, Diamond says that regardless of desirability, some societies will simply destroy others based on their concentration of material competences. He isn't essentialising human nature, just pointing out that some ways of being will murderate others.
>>6372400 Well, he does go to great lenghts to argue that the environmental determinist explanations to the European succes is the right one. If he didn't believe that western ontology was human nature, Why do he need the argument? Why not, like so many others, show that some Peoples, with all the conditions of domestication available, don't do it? It's true, he doesn't glorify the western society, but that still doesn't render his reasoning Sound. I'd say that he do essentialise human nature.
There isn't a single piece of racist "evidence" in this thread yet
fucking autists everywhere
environmental determinism isn't racist, and he was using it as a means to combat the racists saying "europeans conquered because they're genetically superior"
jared diamond traveled throughout the world, to papa new guinea especially, and contemptlessly befriended the tribesman there and repectfully learned their ways
If he is covertly racist, there's no adequate evidence to support it and when he says that the tribesman from papa new guinea are maybe MORE intelligent, it's obviously because of how bogged down most people are by dumb shit in contemporary society -- he already clarified he's not talking about genetics
>>6372453 Look here >>6372435>>6372389 It's not that I don't sympathize with his intentions, But you Can act racist unknowingly. In this case it comes in the form of essentialism, and it's been a problem in anthropology, environmental determinist or not.
>>6372463 >Environments are one of the major factors contributing to genetic mutation. Not only do you not understand genetics but you don't understand that Diamond specifically argues that it's environmental resources (including disease) and NOT GENETICS that lead to European peoples to dominate other populations. Did you even TRY to read the book?
>>6372378 >That's "race." And these "observations" require a cultural conception of "whiteness" and "grouping". Your pseudo-philosophical posturing is sickening and your classist ad hominems do you no favours. You would call a cat a dog given half a chance if it fit your ideology.
>>6372474 /lit/ is a place filled with idiots. Nobody here has a thorough understanding of political philosophy. It's just a bunch of edgelords who skimmed through a few Wikipedia pages until they discovered their new epic meme ideology. Proceeding to make a list of all the important buzzwords and then spam it all over this board as a fashion accessory for shaping their own personal image.
If you want to observe an actual political discussion. Read literature. Starting with the Greeks.
>>6372480 That's just conflating Diamond's conclusion with something else entirely. You're saying "Diamond believes that Western ontology is human nature" when all he's really saying is "the reason that Western populations became global powers is because of environmental resources that they coincidentally had and harnessed towards the ends of dominance."
>>6372464 True, it's not racist, it's just a misrepresentation of Peoples from a variety of cultures that is not his own, creating the effect in the reader that Said peoples are (purely due to Bad luck), less culturally evolved than his own people. On this basis you Can further hypothesize that that the technologies and societal inventions of the more evolved Culture Will be received as welcomed gifts among the primitive cultures, once our troubles with sharing is overcomed.
>>6372537 But, again, he argues that ALL PEOPLES would've done the same, given the same opportunities. If he didn't, Half the book wouldn't be occupied with evidence that the material circumstances weren't present on other Continents.
>>6372568 >But, again, he argues that ALL PEOPLES would've done the same, given the same opportunities. Where in the book does he argue this? I'd like to see a quote.
>If he didn't, Half the book wouldn't be occupied with evidence that the material circumstances weren't present on other Continents. No, I think there are more possible reasons. For example, that certain material limitations in any particular peoples' environments would necessarily limit those particular peoples' ability to dominate other peoples and their environments, whereas peoples with environments that coincidentally supply all known and unknown resources for domination make the enterprise of domination much easier (keeping in mind that "easier" DOES NOT mean "necessary").
>>6372435 >If he didn't believe that western ontology was human nature, Why do he need the argument? That's a meta-critique, that Diamond's research project is racist, not that his research report, his monograph, is racist.
>I'd say that he do essentialise human nature. But not Western ontology. He essentialises dominance.
>>6372607 >If you really care, look up what the Greeks considered ethnoi. Whilst I don't know the greek opinion on ethnic groups, I concede as right what you seem to be a proponent of - in that ethnicities are fluid bodies in the sphere of humanity with definitions created by culture. This fluidity does NOT negate, however, differences in biology between ethnic groups as per their genetic haplotype profiling, which was what the original poster was trying to get across.
>>6372706 >This fluidity does NOT negate, however, differences in biology between ethnic groups as per their genetic haplotype profiling, which was what the original poster was trying to get across.
It does mate, it really fucking does. Do you know how many Poms have haplotypes normally associated with being a curry muncher? That's because their grandparents were curry munchers, but now they're poms. Ethnoi are culturally configured.
Guess how many Greeks were Greeks before Athens and Sparta went to war?
>>6372743 >Do you know how many Poms have haplotypes normally associated with being a curry muncher? Quite a few I imagine, but do a bunch of statistics (boo! hiss!) and you'll find significant differences in good confidence limits for various genetic polymorphisms.
Besides this point, why do you believe ethnicities have to be static and unchanging in their profile to have meaning? We are not talking about greek concepts based on their gods here - such values are ascribable by science.
>>6372748 No fuck you. You have race right? A broad category. Below this you have ethnicity, as in the subcategories of race. Once again are you telling me you can't tell the difference between an Italian and a German? Theyre both European, you telling me that any differences below that are 100% imaginary? Do I need to get my eyes checked doctor? You people are the racist ones here, try telling a Japanese that he's exactly the same as a Korean. See what response you get.
>>6372768 >Besides this point, why do you believe ethnicities have to be static and unchanging in their profile to have meaning? We are not talking about greek concepts based on their gods here - such values are ascribable by science.
Ethnicities aren't static, they're constantly changing, but they're not biologically oriented. Plenty of ethnicities structure non-biological in group behaviour, and EVERY ethnicity has a position inside it for "the other who is us."
They're cultural phenomena.
>>6372776 >differences [are] imaginary No they're symbolic. They exist in a context of theory. Your reading of difference is always presupposed by a theoretical positioning.
Which? The citizens of the state? That includes Ainu and Koreans. The residents? That includes Koreans and gaijin. The culture? That includes Koreans and some Ainu? Great Yamato Culture Ethnics? Again, includes some "Koreans."
p.s.: Some communists in Japan aren't Japanese even though many Japanese would identify them as Japanese.
All of the "differences" you point out are theoretical, they're the result of you already theorising social practice.
>>6372474 You read the book? How do you know he advocates for imperialism just because he admits people were simply born into different circumstances that required and/ or result in different things?You can't just take that as an implication that we suddenly must "share with the less fortunate" and they shouldn't just be left alone.
>>6372568 Wouldn't it be racist towards whites and some other races or groups since it argues that some races are more morally superior than others such that they may or may not have done that exact same thing and conquer?
>>6372783 ethnicity =/= race I will argue that it's not always so clear but for one thing, there isn't much difference between difference between Koreans and Japanese except for cultural. Same with most Europeans and Africans. Probably except Italians Vs. Scandinavians but literally the only difference there is hear color.
>>6372872 So you point out that there are sub-sub categories, such as Sicilians and the mainland french, Ainu, etc, but what does that prove? Nothing, you haven't refuted anything. What are you Ainu, if not an ethnicity? A culture? They are a culture connected by their genetics, so what do you call that if not an ethnicity?
>>6373506 That's not what the post says. The post says it is not Diamond's position that genetics (race) led to European dominance but European utilization of many key environmental resources, which includes disease, that led to dominance.
>>6373336 I've been sleeping. I think that you have to be autistically literal when you're reading the book NOT to come to the conclusion that I've argued for, but even so, here's a quote:
>"I would say to Yali: the striking differences between long-term histories of peoples of the different continents have been due not to innate differences in the peoples themselves but to differences in their environments. I expect that if the populations of Aboriginal Australia and Eurasia could have been interchanged during the late Pleistocene, the original Aboriginal Australians would now be the ones occupying most of the Americas and Australia, as well as Eurasia, while the original Aboriginal Eurasians would be the ones now reduced to downtrodden population fragments in Australia." Page 405, i.e. that's the fucking conclusion.
>>6372615 >That's a meta-critique, that Diamond's research project is racist, not that his research report, his monograph, is racist.
No. Diamonds research project is to find out if there can be an explanation to wealth and power gaps, that can be due to something else than genetic differences. That's not racist. His "monograph" claims that the explanation that humans have an essential nature, and differences are ONLY due to environmental differences (see quote above). That's a misrepresentation of the potential of different ontological systems between cultures.
>But not Western ontology. He essentialises dominance. He essentialises a given way of aproaching nature (that of production and domestication), which is intimately connected with how you perceive the world - in other words, ontology. Dominance is a product of that ontology.
>>6373243 Why? Some peoples don't conquer others, some peoples do. Material circumstances can explain some of it, cultural differences can explain others.
It's an anthropology book written by a bird watcher who was never trained as an anthropologist. It's about on par with Dawkins and Harris doing philosophy and only slightly less ridiculous than if Stephen Hawking wrote a book on running.
Meh. I think his argument is too narrow and doesn't include aspects of culture and human brilliance. Look at the aboriginal peoples of Australia. They didn't discover fire by the time Rome expanded greatly. There were basins in Australia where settlement was possible but they ran around like crazy nomads, ended up settling in distinctly horrendous parts of Australia for implementing civilization
>>6374426 On the contrary, you're the one that's taken the "autistically literal" reading here. All he's done in the quote is affirm his stance that it's the environmental conditions of Eurasia that made those people able to "create so much cargo" and bring it to New Guinea where the natives had "so little cargo", as Yali puts it. You're stretching Diamond's words to find racism where there isn't any.
>>6375582 It was kind of a rude example to make. If you have trouble walking, I apologize. But I don't regret suggesting that, if possible, someone should have experience with something in order to write a book about it. Yes, I would trust a book on running written by an Olympic runner over one written by someone who never runs. Likewise, I'd trust an anthropology book by an anthropologist over one by Jared Diamond.
>>6374426 You described ethnocentrism though. Which often leads to racism not the other way around. Racism more has to do with the hatred and systematic mistreat of a race of people due to ideas of superiority. He doesn't seem to disregard the cultures and think industrialized cultures anymore inherently superior. In that case, can't primitive simply be an operational definition? >Why? Some peoples don't conquer others, some peoples do. I only mentioned morality because that tends to be a measure of it but perhaps wrongly. The non material cultural differences btw would play a role in that.
>>6372872 >All of the "differences" you point out are theoretical, they're the result of you already theorising social practice. You're overusing the word Theory here. The differences exist, but not necessarily in a physically tangible way (culture, etc). Skin color is generally a modifier in identity of oneself and group.
>>6366921 I guess the truth is racist then, or in other words the most logical theory. Why is it that Europeans have always been economically, socially, and technologically superior for the last 2200 years or so? Then you've got the Arabs, the Persians, and the east Asians for a few centuries.
This is a book written by a fucking baby boomer that lived his life "looking at biiiiirds maaan" and believing that "race is a social construct maaaaan" while his jewish contacts managed to get him in to Cambridge. Now that the 70´s and 80´s are over and everyone knows what a DNA strain is they also realized that the reason why niggers act the way they do he decide to publish this rubbish; a last and weak attempt to try to help the savage niggro that cant be helped.
>>6367209 It's the opposite man. The lack of resources forces civilizations to come up with alternative ways of extracting resources for the civilization to survive. This is probably why Africa, among with many other populations with plenty of access to resources have always been doing shit. Also the fact that cross breeding between neanderthals and homo sapiens in Europe and Asia created a more intelligent homo sapiens than the original one, which still exists in Africa.
>>6368003 This is why liberals will never be taken seriously. This is why you're fucking over yourself and everyone believing in the same ideas as you. You guys will either become irrelevant or you'll cause the destruction of an intellectual West (I assume you're from the West.
>>6376699 It is only a social construct ;) You see blacks live in poorer and more uneducated areas because of systematical racism and suppression So the next time you see a black man get down on your knees and plead for forgiveness and ask him politely if he wants to fuck your white gf/wife
>>6376734 >m-m-muh academia Yeah it isn´t like those institutions are corrupt and rotten to the core, especially when it comes to the social sciences It is really easy to dismiss this article; it is written by a doctor of law, a person that most likely have little to no understanding of genetics.
>>6376787 This is very different from what I expected from >>6366890. I am somewhat familiar with the concepts going through that wikipedia article. Judging from how it represents it self, this just seems like circle jerk material and rationalization for why all socialist states so far have failed or are horrible to live in. This far from being any kind of sciene. It is a study at best.
>>6376837 >This is far from being any kind of sciene Given your spelling, I'm really comfortable with your judgements of what is science.
Marxian categories, and the manner of producing categories (multi-scalar discursive, qualitative and quantitative analysis of material relations) was something new, and real, and points at objects of inquiry that can be independently evaluated using shared methods and apparatus.
Unlike instrumentalism it produces theory adequate to the objects, and has an awareness of the "discursive" in the sense of the "open ended" nature of human relations.
Consider, for example, the disputed category of class between the Marxist historians and the sociologist E O Wright, who produces closed monachronic systems.
>>6376804 Samefag here, he is indeed correct that I am a fascist. By the standard he has set. I think it is the one in which the entire spectrum form center-right to anarcho-capitalist to fascist and teocrats are all fascists. I fairly sympathetic to a mixed economy, where you capitalism with few market restrictions.
>>6376847 Go to fringe elements on youtube and get academia out of your ass, they have have a cultural monopoly on science so they can almost say whatever they want and make it fact. But give it to me, I am not going to read her entire book m8tey, just tell me her rational why race is only a social construct ;)
Except for the fact different portions and different elements have more merit than other,s and mostly everyone is working off the work of their previous.
It's not a constant creation set at any given year, month, week, etc. Most work has been pretty much accepted as fact because it is testable, and observable, therefore, some work has more merit than others.
I'm sorry, do you want to go on? I enjoy teaching The fucking Scientific Method
The intro lecture of any Geography class past the intro one where you take map quizzes is literally just "environmental determinism is racism, and marxism and post structuralism are most useful theoretical bases"
>>6377000 >did you just link me the equivalent of Niburu 2012 >adhominems Oh i forgot he is not a fucking professor therfor his arguments are flawed, thanks for proving me right that academia do have the cultural monopoly on what is "correct" Questions >why is there a difference in the average brain size among the races?
>>6377065 >To say that's an assumption would be giving credit to naivety https://neuroscience.stanford.edu/news/ask-neuroscientist-does-bigger-brain-make-you-smarter >Ten years ago, a meta-analysis that examined the results from 26 imaging studies concluded that the correlation between IQ and brain volume is consistently in the 0.3-0.4 range.
But that's literally not true. I have no idea how to discredit someone at Stanford saying something wrong, but it's been academic, for over 40 years now larger brains do not equate for larger intelligence.
The only thing I can consider from this, is you're taking it out of context.
>>6377065 >whad da fug XD Why have some races developed bigger brains, an organ that consumes energy which in evolutionary terms this is known as an expensive organ while others races have not done so? Why does the inuit have a bigger brain than the black man?
>>6377127 Equate is not the same as correlate. Correlate simply means that traits walk hand in hand. At least a certain part of the measurements.
I wish I could find the study where they found that uglyness correlates with leadership skills. It seems fitting for this moement. No-one would confuse uglyness with a personality trait, but it does correlate with leadership skills.
There are many ways for things to walk hand in hand.
>>6377127 I don't know what you mean by equate. Are you talking about interspecies comparisons? That an elephants brain is larger than a human but a human is still smarter?
Take a group of people, measure their brain size as well as possible and give them tests that measure their abstract reasoning abilities. Plot to two variables and you will have a positive correlation. There is a casual relationship.
>>6376219 Yes that's true. I've adressed that here >>6372542 I don't consider Diamond a racist at all. I loved the book and have read two others of his books. I enjoy Them, and find his perspectives enlightening, but I don't accept Them unconditionally. His determinism and disregard for genetic explanations are admirable, but in No way sufficient. Whether you're leftist or right-wing I would expect that kind of literacy from /lit/, but evidently that's asking too much.
>James Blaut has criticized Guns, Germs, and Steel for reviving the theory of environmental determinism, and described Diamond as an example of a modern Eurocentric historian. Blaut also criticizes Diamond's loose use of the terms "Eurasia" and "innovative", which he believes misleads the reader into presuming that Western Europe is responsible for technological inventions that actually arose in the Middle East and Asia.
...and here too:
>Such a revival of the environmental determinist theory that the horrendous living conditions of millions of people are their natural fate would not ordinarily merit scholarly discussion, but since GGS won a PulitzerPrize, many people have begun to believe that Diamond actually offers a credible explanation of an enormously deleterious phenomenon.GGS therefore has such great potential to promote harmful policies that it demands vigorous intellectual damage control.
So how is the noble savage racist? >"Brown people aren't primitive, they are actually smarter and healthier than we are, and we could learn a lot from them." Rather then >"Brown people are primitive sub-humans who need to be taught civilization."
If anything, I'd imagine the noble savage cliche was invented by imperialists who resented what they saw their fellows doing.
Can anybody explain this? I mean it's kind of patronizing, but I'd hesitate to call it racist.
>>6377470 Sorry, I had to traverse a see of fedora memes and /pol/tardism to get to this reply. But yeah I see what you're saying you don't believe it's enough. Though I don't agree with that other post that Diamond invites(or at least intends to invite) the idea that we ought to "share" our fortune with the unfortunate.I think I mentioned that somewhere...Alas, you're right, its sad what this thread has become. I'm out.
>>6377900 Also googling "asiatic occidentalism" with quotes gives me this thread. Without quotes it gives me some bullshit reactionary book called "Occidentalism: the west in the eyes of it's enemies."
>>6377933 Because it is a projection that only speaks about what is inside you, not about what is happening in social reality.
The Other is a product of The Self, not of the empirical analysis of external reality. Think of a hippy chick going to India thinking Hinduism is all earth mother. They fucking rape women with jeans. They rape women with jeans in public and the public will not raise a hue and cry. The hippie is an orientalist.
Self (Other) || External world Self (Other(Good)) === Self (Other(Bad)) Both reject the external world in favour of an internal experience.
>>6382611 >scientific evidence Scientific evidence verifies theories? Theories are simply formed from evidence?
Kuhn you Popper your hot opinions bro. You've Russelled my Humean-being sensitivities. I'm not Lakatosing what you're laying out. You need to Feyerabend your way of thinking to the state of philosophy of science.
Thread replies: 278 Thread images: 17
Thread DB ID: 53385
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at email@example.com with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.