Heartland

boudiccah: First of all, 2000 years ago we had ancient Greece, citizens of which few would argue against being nationalist.

You seem to also imply that "modern, western, educated" people are somehow more enlightened than "ancient, (oriental?), uneducated" people. Why so?
It's not about finding a place to belong, it's about belonging somewhere. This is one pattern where modern academicians frequently and constantly get it the wrong way.
If you feel you belong somewhere, it's not because you have the need to find a place to belong.
And your argument for having to look into ourselves where we fit in...sorry, but it's just silly and has nothing to do with anything.

Btw, why are you so certain it's better to find it for yourself where you belong than to have it given to you?

What i mean is, western psychology on the one hand wnats us to believe we are merely products of our environment and on the other assures us we are all unique and beautiful butterflies. They don't both fit at all, yet you want them both at the same time.

However. i digress and agree that it's both at the same time, taking nothing away from the other. Yes, i never claimed to be logical because i never observed truth as logical.

Anyway. i'd also like to add that life is dangerous from any side you look at it, and actually every step has the potential to lead you to your demise. It doesn't matter what has dangers and what has not.

i dunno...you just seem to be tooting everything modern without any substance of your own, even your caution seems to be without heart. But that's just my impression. i'm sure i'm all wrong and all that. Which is fine, cause i'm not averse to being wrong. i'm rather wrong than right about you.

itnAklipse wrote:boudiccah: First of all, 2000 years ago we had ancient Greece, citizens of which few would argue against being nationalist.

Perhaps I am mistaken, but I thought Ancient Greece was made up of city-states as well... Athens differing significantly from Sparta, etc? Or was Athens the dominant "capital"? I plead ignorance.

itnAklipse wrote:You seem to also imply that "modern, western, educated" people are somehow more enlightened than "ancient, (oriental?), uneducated" people. Why so?

You see an implication where there is none. In fact I tend towards the opposite, though I see the wisdom and folly in every culture, past and present.

itnAklipse wrote:And your argument for having to look into ourselves where we fit in...sorry, but it's just silly and has nothing to do with anything.

It would be if that was what I said or thought. My point was quite the opposite, that our society values this highly, but that in other times and cultures this constant quest for the self has not been such a dominant feature, as people found meaning in things like their nation, their community, their family and so on. And I see the dangers of going too far in either direction.

Yes i see what you mean.

You see everything. You see all the dangers. You are so reasonable whereas everyone else was a fascist of one side or the other.

PS: i always forget. What you said firstabout ancient Greece, sorry, i'm tired, and somewhat drunk, which affects my liking to typing...yes, but spartans were proud of being spartans, athenians were proud of being who they were. If you want total accuracy, i'll change it to Rome. It changes nothing of my point, but maybe it suits you better.

itnAklipse wrote:Yes i see what you mean.

You see everything. You see all the dangers. You are so reasonable whereas everyone else was a fascist of one side or the other.

I really, REALLY do not appreciate having words put in my mouth, whether they're by someone drunk or not. Please stop projecting this self-righteousness onto me. I have made no such sweeping criticisms of "everyone", it appears you are viewing everything I have written through a prejudice which is entirely your own.

Regarding my lack of "heart" - I don't think anyone who knows me, or who has ever spoken with me on matters like these, would or could accuse me of lacking that. Being able (or perhaps more accurately, willing) to acknowledge that your own beliefs and ideals may be ill-thought out, that almost every man's worldview is bound to be flawed, inconsistent and paradoxical at some points... does not equal having no soul.
On the contrary. So many people get so swept up in their convictions and ideals that they leave their humanity behind, it is the road to darkness at noon, to end justifying means. To being the kind of dead-eyed robot who could see people slaughtered in front of him because it fitted with the ideology he had worked out.
The tragedy I see is that the majority of people who do think this way do so because they have the intelligence to have identified a hypocrisy or injustice in the world they live in, but in fighting against it become as pernicious as that which they want to destroy.

So if I have caution, that is why. I don't suggest we shun our ideals or our passion for them, not for a moment. But the dangers of being overwhelmed by them are real - human beings have an immense capacity to rip each other to shreds over matters of politics and belief.

Well I'll duck in under the heated discussion going on over my head (figuratively and actually) and quickly say I managed a :

Economic Left/Right: -3.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.13

I even understood most of the questions!

itnAklipse wrote:Dark: Why should not, if one's country is worth admiring and one's people hold the virtues of their own close, which are also your virtues, one be proud of one's country and people and heritage?

i think one should be. Not at this day and age, but certainly 2000 years ago.

The problem these days is, no people have any virtues of their own. The thing is, i think countries and cultures that are remarkably different in the homogeny, should be proud and unrelentless in preserving their heritage...countries like, say, IRAN.

Also the problem is, that these are very very unfashionable thoughts and foreign thoughts. But they didn't used to be. And NONE of you are any more sophisticated or intelligent than the people who lived at the time when they were popular thoughts.

I see your point, Dei, but in my book "proud of your country" is quite different from "proud of your heritage/history/culture". And I think in the test they mean the former instead of the latter.

A country is just a bunch of lines on a map that have the slight tendency to change a lot over the course of years (sometimes thousands of years, sometimes every year or so, depending on the country ). A culture is what makes a certain bunch of people stick together in a good way.

IZ.

boudicca wrote:Hmm. 2000 years ago, nationalism barely existed as the idea of the nation state only really came into being during the past half-millenium or so.

Not even the past half-millennium, modern days nationalism only started some two hundred years ago, in the late 1800s! Before that there was hardly anything but tribalism, or being faithful to whoever was your leader that specific day. Don't forget e.g. the armies of Rome were mostly built by mercenaries.

Dr. Moody wrote:Economic Left/Right: -5.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.15


not moody anymore

Nice hat, Doc...

Dark wrote:"You cannot be moral without being religious."

I disagree with that statement 100%. I adhere to a certain moral/ethical code (of my own volition), and I'm an atheist. Pfffft.

Izzy HaveMercy wrote:I see your point, Dei, but in my book "proud of your country" is quite different from "proud of your heritage/history/culture". And I think in the test they mean the former instead of the latter.

Exactly. There are tons of idiot Amerikkkans, for example, who adhere wholeheartedly to the "My country, right or wrong!" and "Love it or leave it!" mindsets. *Vomits*

itnAklipse wrote:Also the problem is, that these are very very unfashionable thoughts and foreign thoughts. But they didn't used to be. And NONE of you are any more sophisticated or intelligent than the people who lived at the time when they were popular thoughts.

...and it's all relative and subjective, anyway. So what's your point?

Debaser wrote:OOOh, driving through South Dakota was a very strange thing. In nearly every town there were 'cemetaries' of little white crosses for 'the unborn foetuses' killed by abortions. And houses proudly showing the number of the unborn murdered that day.


....more worrying...these people have guns.....

You weren't vacationing in the "blue states," I suspect, Ness. This type of moronic crap makes me more embarrassed daily to be counted as an "American." Good grief, I can't wait to get the hell out!

Izzy: Good point, i believe you're right. i do have tendency of reading things through my own particular lense

SINsister wrote:

Dark wrote:"You cannot be moral without being religious."

I disagree with that statement 100%.

Likewise.

Religion has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with concepts like morality, sense of justice, sense of honour, sense of decency, or desire to do the right thing as much as possible. We only need to look at the lessons of history to see that coming screaming at us loud 'n' clear.

______________


Just to keep the correct context, here's Korin's full quote:

"You cannot be moral without being religious." That's not a political thing, per se, but it implies a less neo-conservative approach to politics and society.

Well you know, i hate to quote Immanuel Kant, in the end i'm diametrically opposed to him, but he did say:
"Two things fill me with awe - the starry skies above me and the moral law within me."

itnAklipse wrote:Izzy: Good point, i believe you're right. i do have tendency of reading things through my own particular lense

Ya *think*, sir?!


Then again, who doesn't?

SINsister wrote:

Dr. Moody wrote:Economic Left/Right: -5.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.15


not moody anymore

Nice hat, Doc...

That's not a hat. He is the ultimate quiff-boy...

Hmpf. That's not a *real* quiff. Look! It's made of velvet and bits of things and stuff, and it's yellow, ffs. It's only a wannabe, ersatz quiff. *Blows raspberries at it*

You know, I love utterly unique situations / sentences that you know you will only ever come across once in your lifetime.

Such as:

"SINsister blows raspberries at the Dalai Lama's ersatz quiff."

Precisely.

mh wrote:

SINsister wrote:

Dark wrote:"You cannot be moral without being religious."

I disagree with that statement 100%.

Likewise.

Religion has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with concepts like morality, sense of justice, sense of honour, sense of decency, or desire to do the right thing as much as possible. We only need to look at the lessons of history to see that coming screaming at us loud 'n' clear.

______________


Just to keep the correct context, here's Korin's full quote:

"You cannot be moral without being religious." That's not a political thing, per se, but it implies a less neo-conservative approach to politics and society.

Indeed, thanks for adding that part, don't want anyone thinking that that was MY view. Far from it, I don't need a religion to tell me how to be moral, I'd like to think I'm quite capable of that myself.

I didn't think it for a second, Korin - the quotes gave it away right off. No offense intended, sir!

itnAklipse wrote:Izzy: Good point, i believe you're right. i do have tendency of reading things through my own particular lense

Sometimes I'm soo disgusted by your responses, you make quite an interesting human being This response was rather dull, so start drinking again, ye baisturd!

's quite hard to think in UK fer a Belgian, so I have to learn from the best...

IZ.

itnAklipse wrote:Well you know, i hate to quote Immanuel Kant, in the end i'm diametrically opposed to him, but he did say:
"Two things fill me with awe - the starry skies above me and the moral law within me."

That Kant feller... quite keen on the Absinth side of life, now was he?

jist pulling yer leg here, noo ah'm in the mood fer it


IZ.

SINsister wrote:I didn't think it for a second, Korin - the quotes gave it away right off. No offense intended, sir!

And I didn't think you thought it ( ), but just wanted to be sure no-one was gonna jump down anyone's throats on account of a misunderstanding.