If I were rich enough to spend one weekend in Monte Carlo and the next one in Hawai, I think I wouldn't worry about 'my culture' too much. As it is, 'my culture' is all I have, so I identify with it. I don't know how to define it and I'd be hard pressed to list its virtues, but I am sure that there must be some. On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 7:58 PM, Mike Geary <jejunejesuit.geary2@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Being rather ethnocentric myself, I confess that I'm not familiar enough > with the history of Yugoslavia either long ago or yesterday, such that I > can comment on Omar's remark about what was at stake in Yugoslavia around > 1990, nor competent to comment on how it was resolved, apparently not to > Omar's liking. Nevertheless, my ignorance has never kept me from voicing > my astute observations. Phil Enns fills in his opinion (which is in > agreement with Rority -- with whom I too travel) with a quote from > Stanley Fish: "Politics, interest, partisan conviction, and belief are the > locations of morality ("morality" seems a bit too parochial a term to > me,but what the hell, It's the melody, not the lyrics that make the song) > that it is in and through them that one's sense of justice and the good > lives and is put into action." This was offered in response to Walter's > cry for some justification for: "Categorical Imperative, Principle of > Equal Respect for Persons, The Original Position, Principle of Discourse, > etc... etc.." Now, unless I misconstrue Fish-Enns' meaning, I would > construe that my soul-source -- "culture" -- is far and away the better > answer. We are simply our culture which includes all our behaviours which > spring from the beliefs handed to us by our culture. It is only when we > see that the cultural way of thinking and/or doing isn't quite working that > we either go to war or begin to question our beliefs, values, traditions > and make little teeny-tiny adjustments (or total revolution). Everything > is culture. Even the method and manner and degree of cultural change. > Damn, I should have been a sociologist. But what do they know of poetry? > By the same token what the hell do I know? Here's one from moi: > > If ifs were ares > I'd own forty cars, > But I'm just a lonesome > Cowboy. > So this is what I'm going to do, > Saddle up my horse > And say "tootle-loo." > > On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 8:29 AM, Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > >> The idea that people should be as ethnocentric and partisan as possible >> and that the clash of radically defined opposing interests will somehow >> work out for the best was rather widespread in the former Yugoslavia some >> time around 1990. The things did work out eventually, but arguably not for >> the best. >> >> O.K. >> >> On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Phil Enns <phil.enns@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> Walter O. wrote: >>> >>> "We justify our judgements and actions through the giving and assessing >>> of reasons. In doing so, we appeal to one or more moral principles for >>> purposes of securing satisfactory levels of impartiality and objectivity. >>> But can the principles themselves be justified? Could Rorty"s >>> "ethnocentrism" really be the last word on the subject? On that >>> meta-ethical view, any attempt to justify a moral scheme or "vocabulary" >>> would prove to be question-begging since the justification would have to >>> appeal to principles, norms and criteria internal to its own vocabulary. So >>> how then do we justify the Categorical Imperative, Principle of Equal >>> Respect for Persons, The Original Position, Principle of Discourse, etc.. >>> Are these really but articles of political faith?" >>> >>> >>> I don't find Rorty's position as problematic as Walter does, for two >>> different reasons. First, for Rorty, the ethnocentrism really kicks in only >>> when public debate reaches an impasse, and we are only left with >>> acknowledging that these are the beliefs that 'we' hold. It seems to me >>> that this is similar to the situation that leads Kant to acknowledge the >>> fundamental asocial sociability of human beings, in 'Idea for a Universal >>> History', or that nature separates people, in 'Perpetual Peace'. In the >>> end, there can be no Utopia or World government because there are just too >>> many differences for there to be a single set of laws. For Rorty, >>> ultimately, we are bound to our particular histories, but falling back on >>> this particularity is what should happen only when public reasoning has >>> gone as far as it can. >>> >>> Second, the list that Walter gives, i.e. Categorical Imperative, >>> Principle of Equal Respect for Persons, etc., require judgment, and I would >>> prefer that judgment ultimately come under politics. For Kant, judgment is >>> the activity of putting experience under universal rules or laws, so with >>> the CI, we evaluate specific activities by deriving maxims of action from >>> them and attempting to make them universal laws. Because this activity >>> always requires judgment, that is, how the particular comes under the >>> universal, there will always be the problem of how to overcome differences. >>> Kant recognizes that nature divides people, and the one way nature divides >>> is in giving people different interests and goals. So, while in a very >>> Hobbesian fashion, Kant urges people to pursue their interests in as >>> selfish, in other words rational, manner as possible, the reconciliation of >>> differences between people will require a political solution. This >>> political solution will bring about an equilibrium of competing forces and >>> interests, most likely established through a 'spirit of commerce', and most >>> likely in the formation of a Republic. I realize that Walter will not be >>> happy with this, but what comes to mind is a quote from Stanley Fish: >>> 'Politics, interest, partisan conviction, and belief are the locations of >>> morality. It is in and through them that one's sense of justice and the >>> good lives and is put into action.' >>> >>> In short, yes, I am quite happy with Walter's list being articles of >>> political faith and I see this as very much being within the vision Kant >>> outlines for his hope for a peaceful future. >>> >>> >>> Sincerely, >>> >>> Phil >>> >>> >> >