Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Lagayascienza]

I agree with some of what you say here, Count Lucanor. Humans are a part of nature and our drives are based therein. But I don't agree that geographical setting plays no part in shaping culture. It clearly does, as Sy Borg mentioned. Otherwise, Eskimos would have the same cultures and behaviors as desert dwellers. They clearly don't. And I don't understand how you can equate the view that geographical context impacts culture with Idealism. I, as a thorough going evolutionist, can believe that geographical context plays a role in culture, just as it has in biology generally, without being a metaphysical Idealist.

[Pattern-chaser]

Yes, the numbers — "6" or "3" or... — don't really matter here. What does matter is that the grey area between black and white, in many contexts or discussions, occupies most of the available space. The extremes are the fence-posts; the edges; the boundaries; nearly all the action takes place in between. It is almost unheard of for a 'pure' extreme to exist in the real world. In other words, there is dark grey, but very little black, or light grey, and very little white. So little, in fact, that the Taoists saw fit to create the 'yin-yang sign' to illustrate the point visually.

Can you show us the grey area between “there’s only a natural world” and “there’s a supernatural world beyond the natural world”?

If I answer this according to my own understanding of those words, we will end up in a lengthy exchange that will eventually turn out to be semantic-only. I'm sure you agree that would be pointless?

Try it.

OK, I'll try.

But first let's be clear what we are talking about. Consider a very simple analogy. BLACK and WHITE, seen as binary 'opposites', are two mathematical points. What I'm talking about is not a move from binary to trinary — BLACK, WHITE and GREY — I'm talking about a move from no dimensions (points have no length) to one dimension; a move from two points to a continuous spectrum containing an infinite number of points.

The change is similar to when we imagine what a 2D being would see of a 3D world — a radical change of perspective. Instead of just two points, we have a line that begins on one of those points, and ends on the other.



OK, to your question. Here it is again:

Can you show us the grey area between “there’s only a natural world” and “there’s a supernatural world beyond the natural world”?

The obvious 'grey' response is perhaps "there's a world that contains elements of the natural and the supernatural", but that seems rather trite. Let's see if I can do better...

A "supernatural world" could describe many things. There's an obvious spectrum there, from a world that was created, and is ruled over by an omni-everything God, to a world that contains a few things that aren't really covered by "natural" alone. Starting from "natural", our first step might include creatures like Bigfoot, Yetis and the Loch Ness 'monster'. Then we might progress in the direction of river- and tree-spirits, or leprechauns and pixies. Then, of course, there are 'saints', who seem to have some sort of supernatural aspect or attribute. And on our way to the other end of the spectrum, we will surely encounter demi-gods too. So the "supernatural world" could describe or contain a variety — a spectrum — of things, even before we try to contrast it with your "natural-only" world.

Your question, simplified a little, seems to say, in your preferred binary form of expression, that a supernatural world either exists, or it doesn't. The "natural world" seems superfluous. And here, one possible grey area is that our world might contain some level or degree of 'supernaturalness'.

And between “science and philosophy can deal with everything natural” and “science and philosophy cannot deal with everything natural”?

This one is much easier, I think.

“Science and philosophy can deal with some/many/most natural things.”

[Pattern-chaser]

One more: between “there’s a grey area between black and white” and “there’s no grey area between black and white”?

What’s the grey area here?

Pattern-chaser I’m still curious about this. Any thoughts on the “shades of grey”?

Sorry, I missed this one. One possible grey area is the trinary view: GREY separates BLACK from WHITE. Although that's a *very* small 'area'. More generally, there is a known and long-understood colour-group we call "grey", which stretches from the lightest grey, closest to white, to the darkest, closest to black. Anyone with a paintbrush and some white and black paint can demonstrate this for you. A literal grey area.

[Count Lucanor]

I agree with some of what you say here, Count Lucanor. Humans are a part of nature and our drives are based therein. But I don't agree that geographical setting plays no part in shaping culture. It clearly does, as Sy Borg mentioned. Otherwise, Eskimos would have the same cultures and behaviors as desert dwellers. They clearly don't. And I don't understand how you can equate the view that geographical context impacts culture with Idealism. I, as a thorough going evolutionist, can believe that geographical context plays a role in culture, just as it has in biology generally, without being a metaphysical Idealist.

You might want to read again, that’s not what I said. I clearly stated that there’s a relation between humans and nature. I didn’t say that the natural environment “plays no part”. I do assert that the part it plays has little to do with a sort of purely symbolical decoding of the geographical scenario, a mere spiritual connection, a construction of meaning obtained solely from the formal configuration of the natural setting. I hope I can make myself clear now.

[Lagayascienza]

OK, but you also said,

The myth of geographical settings as the source of some psychological connection that shapes human culture was dealt with and cleared from the scientific practice of Human Geography by the late Italian geographer Massimo Quaini. It’s pure ideology, natural determinism of Malthusian origins. It’s pure Idealism. It’s plain nonsense. You should check out his Marxism and Geography.

How is it pure Idealism? Metaphysical Idealism, as far as I know, has little to say on such matters. And like I said, I can be a thorough-going evolutionist steeped in reductionist science and still believe that myth and ledged are in part mediated by geographical context. You have not explained how my believing that myth and ledged are in part mediated by geographical context means that I must also be an metaphysical Idealist. I do believe myth and legend are so mediated but I am far from being a metaphysical Idealist.

[Belindi]

Humans are just partially shaped by geography, in the sense that they depend on natural resources to survive and create their material conditions of living, but they are not passive recipients of the fruits of nature, in fact they build territorial identity in the process of transforming nature. Humans, through their social practices, shape their environment, too, and this is the origin of their territorial identity. The myth of geographical settings as the source of some psychological connection that shapes human culture was dealt with and cleared from the scientific practice of Human Geography by the late Italian geographer Massimo Quaini. It’s pure ideology, natural determinism of Malthusian origins. It’s pure Idealism. It’s plain nonsense. You should check out his Marxism and Geography.

Cultural relativism isn't like ontological idealism, because cultural relativism is framed within , and bounded by, physical environment and biology. People can shape their environments, "transforming nature", only to a limited extent.
This is not cultural determinism, it is cultural relativity which is not the same as cultural determinism.
I recommend you think what they build territorial identity in the process of transforming nature. implies. It's thinly disguised right wing rhetoric .

[Count Lucanor]

But first let's be clear what we are talking about. Consider a very simple analogy. BLACK and WHITE, seen as binary 'opposites', are two mathematical points. What I'm talking about is not a move from binary to trinary — BLACK, WHITE and GREY — I'm talking about a move from no dimensions (points have no length) to one dimension; a move from two points to a continuous spectrum containing an infinite number of points.

The change is similar to when we imagine what a 2D being would see of a 3D world — a radical change of perspective. Instead of just two points, we have a line that begins on one of those points, and ends on the other.

For the record, I have no issue with spectrums, shades, whatever, where they do exist. You mention mathematical points, but there are continuous and discrete variables in that domain. Anyway, we are mostly talking about qualitative properties, but in that case as well, there are discrete states and degrees. A pregnant woman, a married man, a vacuum, an eukaryotic cell, a living being, having vision, these are things for which there is no in-between. You can talk about their changes and levels of development, such as a 3 months pregnant woman, a young living being, a recently married man or blurred vision, but nevertheless they are either pregnant, living, married, eukaryotic, with vision, or they are not. All of this, of course, has to do with things and their properties.

On the epistemological side, that’s another issue. There are levels of knowledge, belief, certainty, as you want to call it, but it is a fallacy to postulate that degrees of certainty on the existence of eukaryotic cells immediately creates a spectrum between being or not being an eukaryotic cell, arguing that there’s a middle ground for everything. I thing I’ll start calling it the “grey area fallacy” and will submit it to departments of philosophy all over the world.

OK, to your question. Here it is again:

Can you show us the grey area between “there’s only a natural world” and “there’s a supernatural world beyond the natural world”?

A "supernatural world" could describe many things…

Your question, simplified a little, seems to say, in your preferred binary form of expression, that a supernatural world either exists, or it doesn't. The "natural world" seems superfluous. And here, one possible grey area is that our world might contain some level or degree of 'supernaturalness'.

Even though you tried, you could not come up with a clear concept of what is natural or supernatural. OK, fair enough, we can then conclude with the highest degree of certainty that you cannot identify a grey area between the natural and the supernatural as conceived in my statements, neither a grey area in any other distinction of the natural and the supernatural, since you have not made your mind about what those things are.

And between “science and philosophy can deal with everything natural” and “science and philosophy cannot deal with everything natural”?

This one is much easier, I think.

“Science and philosophy can deal with some/many/most natural things.”

Nope. That statement and the statement “science and philosophy cannot deal with everything natural” are equivalent. No grey area there yet.

So far, much evidence about “grey areas” on my stances in this thread is lacking.

[Count Lucanor]

OK, but you also said,

The myth of geographical settings as the source of some psychological connection that shapes human culture was dealt with and cleared from the scientific practice of Human Geography by the late Italian geographer Massimo Quaini. It’s pure ideology, natural determinism of Malthusian origins. It’s pure Idealism. It’s plain nonsense. You should check out his Marxism and Geography.

How is it pure Idealism? Metaphysical Idealism, as far as I know, has little to say on such matters. And like I said, I can be a thorough-going evolutionist steeped in reductionist science and still believe that myth and ledged are in part mediated by geographical context. You have not explained how my believing that myth and ledged are in part mediated by geographical context means that I must also be an metaphysical Idealist. I do believe myth and legend are so mediated but I am far from being a metaphysical Idealist.

We are in social theory now, I’m talking about the application of Idealism to social theory, which also has implications on political economy. There’s a distinction between natural determinism of the species, explained by natural sciences, and natural determinism applied to cultural history in social sciences, in which such view is an expression of political ideology.

[Count Lucanor]

Humans are just partially shaped by geography, in the sense that they depend on natural resources to survive and create their material conditions of living, but they are not passive recipients of the fruits of nature, in fact they build territorial identity in the process of transforming nature. Humans, through their social practices, shape their environment, too, and this is the origin of their territorial identity. The myth of geographical settings as the source of some psychological connection that shapes human culture was dealt with and cleared from the scientific practice of Human Geography by the late Italian geographer Massimo Quaini. It’s pure ideology, natural determinism of Malthusian origins. It’s pure Idealism. It’s plain nonsense. You should check out his Marxism and Geography.

Cultural relativism isn't like ontological idealism, because cultural relativism is framed within , and bounded by, physical environment and biology. People can shape their environments, "transforming nature", only to a limited extent.
This is not cultural determinism, it is cultural relativity which is not the same as cultural determinism.
I recommend you think what they build territorial identity in the process of transforming nature. implies. It's thinly disguised right wing rhetoric .

I didn’t use the terms “cultural relativism” and “cultural determinism” so I don’t quite get your point on my post.

[Lagayascienza]

OK, but you also said,

The myth of geographical settings as the source of some psychological connection that shapes human culture was dealt with and cleared from the scientific practice of Human Geography by the late Italian geographer Massimo Quaini. It’s pure ideology, natural determinism of Malthusian origins. It’s pure Idealism. It’s plain nonsense. You should check out his Marxism and Geography.

How is it pure Idealism? Metaphysical Idealism, as far as I know, has little to say on such matters. And like I said, I can be a thorough-going evolutionist steeped in reductionist science and still believe that myth and ledged are in part mediated by geographical context. You have not explained how my believing that myth and ledged are in part mediated by geographical context means that I must also be an metaphysical Idealist. I do believe myth and legend are so mediated but I am far from being a metaphysical Idealist.

We are in social theory now, I’m talking about the application of Idealism to social theory, which also has implications on political economy. There’s a distinction between natural determinism of the species, explained by natural sciences, and natural determinism applied to cultural history in social sciences, in which such view is an expression of political ideology.

But, again, how does this entail Idealism?

[Sy Borg]

OK, but you also said,

The myth of geographical settings as the source of some psychological connection that shapes human culture was dealt with and cleared from the scientific practice of Human Geography by the late Italian geographer Massimo Quaini. It’s pure ideology, natural determinism of Malthusian origins. It’s pure Idealism. It’s plain nonsense. You should check out his Marxism and Geography.

How is it pure Idealism? Metaphysical Idealism, as far as I know, has little to say on such matters. And like I said, I can be a thorough-going evolutionist steeped in reductionist science and still believe that myth and ledged are in part mediated by geographical context. You have not explained how my believing that myth and ledged are in part mediated by geographical context means that I must also be an metaphysical Idealist. I do believe myth and legend are so mediated but I am far from being a metaphysical Idealist.

We are in social theory now, I’m talking about the application of Idealism to social theory, which also has implications on political economy. There’s a distinction between natural determinism of the species, explained by natural sciences, and natural determinism applied to cultural history in social sciences, in which such view is an expression of political ideology.

But, again, how does this entail Idealism?

It doesn't. Further, it seems that someone thinks that "environment" does not include modernity, forgetting that environment is all-encompassing. As you say, it's standard evolutionary theory - all life is shaped by its environment. I have not heard of evolution being called "determinism" before. Oh well, it takes all types.

Culture is also naturally shaped by environment. I live in a beach-going culture. Alaskans don't. Some cultures are deeply reliant on skiing and sledding. I've never seen snow. If I washed in and drank from the Ganges, like many Indians do, I would die. Cultures are shaped in countless ways by environment, although now we need to consider the meta environment of mass communications, which perhaps complicates the situation even more than international trade and migration.

[Belindi]

Humans are just partially shaped by geography, in the sense that they depend on natural resources to survive and create their material conditions of living, but they are not passive recipients of the fruits of nature, in fact they build territorial identity in the process of transforming nature. Humans, through their social practices, shape their environment, too, and this is the origin of their territorial identity. The myth of geographical settings as the source of some psychological connection that shapes human culture was dealt with and cleared from the scientific practice of Human Geography by the late Italian geographer Massimo Quaini. It’s pure ideology, natural determinism of Malthusian origins. It’s pure Idealism. It’s plain nonsense. You should check out his Marxism and Geography.

Cultural relativism isn't like ontological idealism, because cultural relativism is framed within , and bounded by, physical environment and biology. People can shape their environments, "transforming nature", only to a limited extent.
This is not cultural determinism, it is cultural relativity which is not the same as cultural determinism.
I recommend you think what they build territorial identity in the process of transforming nature. implies. It's thinly disguised right wing rhetoric .

I didn’t use the terms “cultural relativism” and “cultural determinism” so I don’t quite get your point on my post.

You did write "natural determinism of Malthusian origins", which is hard to understand. I introduced 'cultural determinism ' and 'cultural relativity' because these terms , if not exactly common knowledge, are easy to Google if you are not already familiar with them.
Cultural determinism can and sometimes does lead to unethical actions and ideas, as for instance does zionism and other forms of extreme nationalism.

There is a lot of devious nobbling going on by the extreme right and their nasty ideas trickle even into media such as this little forum.

[Count Lucanor]

OK, but you also said,

The myth of geographical settings as the source of some psychological connection that shapes human culture was dealt with and cleared from the scientific practice of Human Geography by the late Italian geographer Massimo Quaini. It’s pure ideology, natural determinism of Malthusian origins. It’s pure Idealism. It’s plain nonsense. You should check out his Marxism and Geography.

How is it pure Idealism? Metaphysical Idealism, as far as I know, has little to say on such matters. And like I said, I can be a thorough-going evolutionist steeped in reductionist science and still believe that myth and ledged are in part mediated by geographical context. You have not explained how my believing that myth and ledged are in part mediated by geographical context means that I must also be an metaphysical Idealist. I do believe myth and legend are so mediated but I am far from being a metaphysical Idealist.

We are in social theory now, I’m talking about the application of Idealism to social theory, which also has implications on political economy. There’s a distinction between natural determinism of the species, explained by natural sciences, and natural determinism applied to cultural history in social sciences, in which such view is an expression of political ideology.

But, again, how does this entail Idealism?

It does, in the sense that here nature operates teleologically, with some sort of Geist driving economic history.

[Count Lucanor]

Humans are just partially shaped by geography, in the sense that they depend on natural resources to survive and create their material conditions of living, but they are not passive recipients of the fruits of nature, in fact they build territorial identity in the process of transforming nature. Humans, through their social practices, shape their environment, too, and this is the origin of their territorial identity. The myth of geographical settings as the source of some psychological connection that shapes human culture was dealt with and cleared from the scientific practice of Human Geography by the late Italian geographer Massimo Quaini. It’s pure ideology, natural determinism of Malthusian origins. It’s pure Idealism. It’s plain nonsense. You should check out his Marxism and Geography.

Cultural relativism isn't like ontological idealism, because cultural relativism is framed within , and bounded by, physical environment and biology. People can shape their environments, "transforming nature", only to a limited extent.
This is not cultural determinism, it is cultural relativity which is not the same as cultural determinism.
I recommend you think what they build territorial identity in the process of transforming nature. implies. It's thinly disguised right wing rhetoric .

I didn’t use the terms “cultural relativism” and “cultural determinism” so I don’t quite get your point on my post.

You did write "natural determinism of Malthusian origins", which is hard to understand. I introduced 'cultural determinism ' and 'cultural relativity' because these terms , if not exactly common knowledge, are easy to Google if you are not already familiar with them.
Cultural determinism can and sometimes does lead to unethical actions and ideas, as for instance does zionism and other forms of extreme nationalism.

There is a lot of devious nobbling going on by the extreme right and their nasty ideas trickle even into media such as this little forum.

I’m aware of what cultural relativism and cultural determinism entail, but I still don’t get how they relate to my point in whatever point you are trying to make. I suspect that you interpreted my reference to “territorial identity” as a reference to national identity, but these are different things, or at least meant to point to different things.

[Pattern-chaser]

But first let's be clear what we are talking about. Consider a very simple analogy. BLACK and WHITE, seen as binary 'opposites', are two mathematical points. What I'm talking about is not a move from binary to trinary — BLACK, WHITE and GREY — I'm talking about a move from no dimensions (points have no length) to one dimension; a move from two points to a continuous spectrum containing an infinite number of points.

The change is similar to when we imagine what a 2D being would see of a 3D world — a radical change of perspective. Instead of just two points, we have a line that begins on one of those points, and ends on the other.

For the record, I have no issue with spectrums, shades, whatever, where they do exist. You mention mathematical points, but there are continuous and discrete variables in that domain. Anyway, we are mostly talking about qualitative properties, but in that case as well, there are discrete states and degrees. A pregnant woman, a married man, a vacuum, an eukaryotic cell, a living being, having vision, these are things for which there is no in-between. You can talk about their changes and levels of development, such as a 3 months pregnant woman, a young living being, a recently married man or blurred vision, but nevertheless they are either pregnant, living, married, eukaryotic, with vision, or they are not. All of this, of course, has to do with things and their properties.

On the epistemological side, that’s another issue. There are levels of knowledge, belief, certainty, as you want to call it, but it is a fallacy to postulate that degrees of certainty on the existence of eukaryotic cells immediately creates a spectrum between being or not being an eukaryotic cell, arguing that there’s a middle ground for everything. I thing I’ll start calling it the “grey area fallacy” and will submit it to departments of philosophy all over the world.

Not everything has a grey area. If my words seemed to convey that meaning, that's my mistake. But I do believe it's correct to observe that we often treat spectrums as binary, when they really are spectrums. And it is this latter that I object to. We are too quick to fall back on easy, binary, thinking, IMO.