As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

"Tradition" and "Society"

PodlyPodly you unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered User regular
edited December 2007 in Debate and/or Discourse
In the most recent chat thread, some forumers were discussing names and arbitrary gender restrictions on them. This restriction is quite illogical and solely based on tradition. Mark is a boy's name.(1) This is the tradition that has been handed down to us. Tradition, however, has become a sort of abstract object of supreme influence in the modern mind. Tradition comes from the latin verb "tradizio" to pass down. It can still be used in English: "I traditioned unto my children respect for the law," though it sounds fairly archaic. The normal meaning of tradition is still what is handed down to the next generation. It's normal function is that of a passive object, with possible reflexivity.

Nevertheless, there is an increasing trend to think of "Tradition"(2) as a force of it's own, which we have no control over. Conservatives have viewed Tradition as something to be worshipped and feared, set in it's ways, never to change. Liberals have viewed it as the inherited flaws of Western Culture, to be battled with and surgically removed.

This view of tradition has long been tied to progressivism. However, the same outlook and rhetoric is now used by those who wage war on Society. They view "Society"(3) as a collection of evil social structures, a subjective force at odds with freedom, that seeks to keep the upper class in power. Society impresses upon us(4) racism, sexism, classism, and faulty values that keep us in eternal hope of that which we will never receive.

I feel that these changes are the result of a post-secular society, where the church and the government(5) do not have controlling functions in our lives. The church really has no moral power, and totalitarian governments,in the vein of communist states, no longer exist. We have am almost genetic desire to blame others, and this compulsion to blame is also manifest in society. In a societal level, however, we have to abstract the blame, or else we blame ourselves. And this abstraction is opposed to progress. When the abstracted object of ridicule was the church or the state, the objects of ridicule could be changed or worked on. But when we take that which we do not like in ourselves and project it outward, we cannot fix it: we will not operate on ourselves, and thus will never be able to operate on that which is actually ourselves. The ominous "Big Other" has become itself.



(1)I don't think this is the place to discuss naming traditions. There are bigger issues at hand. I think most would agree that gender restrictions on names are stupid, but no good parent would name their boy "Sarah" or daughter "Bobby," because the need to protect your children is more important than instilling in them some abstract notion of societal progression.
(2) The subjective, culturally monolithic force hereafter distinguished from the passive, objective set of morals passed down by use of capitalization.
(3) Again, notice the capitalization to signify nominalization.
(4) Passivity
(5)In America

follow my music twitter soundcloud tumblr
9pr1GIh.jpg?1
Podly on
«13

Posts

  • NarianNarian Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Podly wrote: »
    (1) I think most would agree that gender restrictions on names are stupid,

    What, why?

    Narian on
    Narian.gif
  • syrionsyrion Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Narian wrote: »
    Podly wrote: »
    (1) I think most would agree that gender restrictions on names are stupid,

    What, why?

    ^ this

    syrion on
  • ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited December 2007
    Because they make 0 sense? Let's always take the thread into the last interesting avenue, that's always fun.

    Elki on
    smCQ5WE.jpg
  • ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    I don't see how naming your children according to their gender is bad or evil or regressive.

    If you don't like it, there are a plethora of unisex names to choose from.

    ege02 on
  • PicardathonPicardathon Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    I think gender restrictions are for the sake of being able to tell boys and girls apart. Most names are not unisex, so you can usually tell by looking at the name.

    Picardathon on
  • PodlyPodly you unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    ...D:

    Podly on
    follow my music twitter soundcloud tumblr
    9pr1GIh.jpg?1
  • Evil MultifariousEvil Multifarious Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    So Podly, your thesis here seems to be that blaming "society" is a sort of diffuse, abstracted method of shifting the blame from ourselves, and that doing so prevents us from identifying the real, precise causes of our problems (in ourselves)? I would agree with that.
    PS gender restrictions on names serve no purpose and simply limit the choices available to a parent and more importantly victimize children who end up with gender-incorrect or even gender-ambiguous names.

    Evil Multifarious on
  • ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited December 2007
    Do you guys even attempt to read the OP before posting?

    Elki on
    smCQ5WE.jpg
  • PicardathonPicardathon Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Elki wrote: »
    Do you guys even attempt to read the OP before posting?

    Yes, I'm just dumb.

    Picardathon on
  • ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    Elki wrote: »
    Do you guys even attempt to read the OP before posting?

    Yeah, he mentioned naming traditions, and then started talking about society and tradition in a very abstract sense. That's why I didn't feel like commenting on the latter, even though he did make it clear that he doesn't want this thread to be about names.

    ege02 on
  • PodlyPodly you unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    So Podly, your thesis here seems to be that blaming "society" is a sort of diffuse, abstracted method of shifting the blame from ourselves, and that doing so prevents us from identifying the real, precise causes of our problems (in ourselves)? I would agree with that.
    PS gender restrictions on names serve no purpose and simply limit the choices available to a parent and more importantly victimize children who end up with gender-incorrect or even gender-ambiguous names.

    That's pretty accurate. However, I think abstract nominalization is important as well. Tradition should be something that we control, as should to a lesser extent society. However, they have been abstracted into their own beings, forces which dominate us and strip us of our ability to act, which leads to thanatos and apathy.

    Podly on
    follow my music twitter soundcloud tumblr
    9pr1GIh.jpg?1
  • DiscGraceDiscGrace Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Poldy, I'm confused on a point - do you mean that those who would wage war on Society are part of the movement of progressivism? If so, I would disagree - I consider myself a progressive, and although there are several things about society I wish I could change, I don't see it as simply a collection of evil structures. Society in and of itself isn't evil - societies can be. Ours has some very negative aspects, certainly, but I don't think it's a progressive ideal to completely dismantle Society as an institution.

    DiscGrace on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    Almost all girls' names are former boys' names, and there's a fair contingent the other way around. I believe I read about this in the section on language in the New York Times Magazine.

    Now, go watch the intro sequence to Fiddler on the Roof so I don't have to quote it here in mockery.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • AldoAldo Hippo Hooray Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    So what you're saying is that people who refuse to follow "tradition" or hate "society" are more or less hating themselves, because society and tradition is a sum of parts and everyone is part of it? It would be better if we would say "damn, I really hate that I don't want to name my boy Sue" instead of "damn, it is really stupid that people don't want to name their boys Sue"?

    Aldo on
  • DiscGraceDiscGrace Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Poldy wrote:
    which leads to thanatos

    Yikes, that is something we certainly don't want. He's hairy.

    DiscGrace on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Evil MultifariousEvil Multifarious Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Podly wrote: »
    So Podly, your thesis here seems to be that blaming "society" is a sort of diffuse, abstracted method of shifting the blame from ourselves, and that doing so prevents us from identifying the real, precise causes of our problems (in ourselves)? I would agree with that.
    PS gender restrictions on names serve no purpose and simply limit the choices available to a parent and more importantly victimize children who end up with gender-incorrect or even gender-ambiguous names.

    That's pretty accurate. However, I think abstract nominalization is important as well. Tradition should be something that we control, as should to a lesser extent society. However, they have been abstracted into their own beings, forces which dominate us and strip us of our ability to act, which leads to thanatos and apathy.

    So you're establishing "society" and "tradition" as chimeras we've created to blame ourselves without blaming ourselves

    I think that's a significant problem, yes, because it does create apathy and even paralysis. How can you change "society," especially when it is being conceptualized as an entity separate from and above individual humans?

    I don't see any obvious solution to the problem, either.

    Evil Multifarious on
  • PodlyPodly you unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    DiscGrace wrote: »
    Poldy, I'm confused on a point - do you mean that those who would wage war on Society are part of the movement of progressivism? If so, I would disagree - I consider myself a progressive, and although there are several things about society I wish I could change, I don't see it as simply a collection of evil structures. Society in and of itself isn't evil - societies can be. Ours has some very negative aspects, certainly, but I don't think it's a progressive ideal to completely dismantle Society as an institution.

    No, my problem is that society as anthropology enlarged into communities is one of the defining characteristics of humanity. (s)ociety is brilliant and I love it. I believe that the post-secularists can no longer diametrically oppose themselves to the church or the state, which, while being abstracted, where still real entities. Now, the "Big Other" of their ridicule is a creation, which allows them to rant without actually opening up a discourse or possibility for change.

    Podly on
    follow my music twitter soundcloud tumblr
    9pr1GIh.jpg?1
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited December 2007
    People generally have to conform to society to get what they want out of it, forcing them to become part of it. This does nothing to change their opinion of it. Occasionally enough differently-minded people manage to make a sub-culture, which, as it gathers force and people, changes until there are too many people for everyone to agree on how it should function, creating a smaller version of the original social issue.

    I don't really see where the controversy is supposed to be.

    Incenjucar on
  • AldoAldo Hippo Hooray Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    So people like to blame everything on others without actually trying anything themselves. That's not very shocking or anything.

    If you want to change something in society you must start with yourself. Don't want to close your shop on Sundays? Then don't. Someone has to start with it.

    Aldo on
  • PodlyPodly you unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Aldo wrote: »
    So what you're saying is that people who refuse to follow "tradition" or hate "society" are more or less hating themselves, because society and tradition is a sum of parts and everyone is part of it? It would be better if we would say "damn, I really hate that I don't want to name my boy Sue" instead of "damn, it is really stupid that people don't want to name their boys Sue"?

    No. People who view "Tradition" and "Society" as structures which have moved from objects of human control to subjects who control human culture and nature are whom I argue against. Tradition and society are flawed because people are flawed. Tradition has great things that we pass on to our kids, yet we also pass some hurtful things unto the next generation, mostly out of ignorance.

    Podly on
    follow my music twitter soundcloud tumblr
    9pr1GIh.jpg?1
  • ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    Aldo wrote: »
    So people like to blame everything on others without actually trying anything themselves. That's not very shocking or anything.

    If you want to change something in society you must start with yourself. Don't want to close your shop on Sundays? Then don't. Someone has to start with it.

    In some countries (not sure about USA) there are anti-competition laws preventing people from keeping their stores opening/closing their stores earlier/later than a certain time, and being open during holidays.

    ege02 on
  • syrionsyrion Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Elki wrote: »
    Do you guys even attempt to read the OP before posting?

    Yep. I just see a flaw in his elucidation of his premise: names are not gender-restricted because of some horrible plot, but rather mostly linguistically. French-derived names, for example, tend to add '-ette' and '-anne' and so on to signal femininity. It's not religious or even particularly cultural, it's just the way the language works. Claude/Claudette, Jean/Jeanne, Mari/Marianne, and so on. The same thing happens in other languages, though we mostly use Biblical and Latin-derived names these days. Take, for example, the English names Hailey and Hadley. First is used for girls, second for boys. Tan, Tania. First for boys, second for girls.

    Sometimes names are chosen for meaning: a boy will be "Strength," a girl "Grace."

    I suppose you might argue that those gender roles are unfair, but that's entirely separate from the issue of names.

    syrion on
  • DiscGraceDiscGrace Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    I'm going to have to disagree that we live in a post-secular world. The Church still enjoys a great deal of control in most people's lives these days - not with laws so much as exerting their will through people's beliefs. Thinking you're going to go to hell for eternity if you don't follow what your pastor says and obey the by-laws of the church (and, usually, give them money) is a pretty good source of control if you ask me. I'd consider myself (and, uh, Loren Michael for example) diametrically opposed to the Church, for example.

    I do agree though that it is often a human trait to despise in others (even abstract others) what we dislike in ourselves. But not everything we despise is an example of that reflection (unless you think I'm secretly a pious misogynist?). Pointing out things that need to be changed is the only way they get changed, and while we can't do much to alter the beliefs of those who constitute Society, we can do as much as we can do dismantle the institutionalizations of those beliefs.

    DiscGrace on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • CorvusCorvus . VancouverRegistered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Podly wrote: »
    Nevertheless, there is an increasing trend to think of "Tradition"(2) as a force of it's own, which we have no control over.

    I don't really think you can argue that this is a new phenomenon. Tradtion, or custom, or whatever you want to call it has been a powerful force in society, probably for nearly as long as we've had societies.

    Corvus on
    :so_raven:
  • AldoAldo Hippo Hooray Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    Aldo wrote: »
    So people like to blame everything on others without actually trying anything themselves. That's not very shocking or anything.

    If you want to change something in society you must start with yourself. Don't want to close your shop on Sundays? Then don't. Someone has to start with it.

    In some countries (not sure about USA) there are anti-competition laws preventing people from keeping their stores opening/closing their stores earlier/later than a certain time, and being open during holidays.

    It was an example based on the movie Chocolat. I understand there's rules in some places that forces people to close their shops on Sundays, but that is kind of besides the point and it would be lost to Americans anyway.

    Aldo on
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited December 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    In some countries (not sure about USA) there are anti-competition laws preventing people from keeping their stores opening/closing their stores earlier/later than a certain time, and being open during holidays.

    I'm pretty sure some towns in the US have this too.

    Such as not being able to be open on Sundays.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_law

    --

    Anyways, here's the thing: Society controls the world. You cannot separate from it on a large scale unless you want to go and live in the woods. And even then, they may very likely try to hunt your ass down and throw you in jail. So we are all, for the most part, forced to be part of society. We don't have to like the fact, because while it's very useful it's also full of horrible crap that you have no choice but to participate in via taxes.

    Incenjucar on
  • CorvusCorvus . VancouverRegistered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    In some countries (not sure about USA) there are anti-competition laws preventing people from keeping their stores opening/closing their stores earlier/later than a certain time, and being open during holidays.

    I'm pretty sure some towns in the US have this too.

    Such as not being able to be open on Sundays.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_law

    They had (and I think still have this) in Nova Scotia when I lived there. It was hugely annoying, as the law forced big stores like super markets to close, but drug stores, where they'll add two bucks to the normal cost of a loaf of bread or whatever were allowed to be open. Its a relic of a more religious society I guess.

    Corvus on
    :so_raven:
  • Evil MultifariousEvil Multifarious Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Corvus wrote: »
    Podly wrote: »
    Nevertheless, there is an increasing trend to think of "Tradition"(2) as a force of it's own, which we have no control over.

    I don't really think you can argue that this is a new phenomenon. Tradtion, or custom, or whatever you want to call it has been a powerful force in society, probably for nearly as long as we've had societies.

    That's not what he's arguing. He's saying that tradition is being perceived not as part of society but as an independent force, out of our control, separate from us and yet affecting us dramatically, and that such a conception is dangerous.

    Evil Multifarious on
  • PodlyPodly you unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    DiscGrace wrote: »
    I'm going to have to disagree that we live in a post-secular world. The Church still enjoys a great deal of control in most people's lives these days - not with laws so much as exerting their will through people's beliefs. Thinking you're going to go to hell for eternity if you don't follow what your pastor says and obey the by-laws of the church (and, usually, give them money) is a pretty good source of control if you ask me. I'd consider myself (and, uh, Loren Michael for example) diametrically opposed to the Church, for example.

    I do agree though that it is often a human trait to despise in others (even abstract others) what we dislike in ourselves. But not everything we despise is an example of that reflection (unless you think I'm secretly a pious misogynist?). Pointing out things that need to be changed is the only way they get changed, and while we can't do much to alter the beliefs of those who constitute Society, we can do as much as we can do dismantle the institutionalizations of those beliefs.

    I agree that defining our society as "post-secular" is kind of hard. However, by it's very notion, secularism means freedom from religious persecution. Yes, the church does exert an extremely great influence over society. However, this influence is not power. As much as it may try, the church itself cannot step in and ban gay marriage universally. Likewise, the state can no longer dictate, for the most part, how we act. You can be opposed to it - I'm diametrically opposed to those who oppose religion, I guess, but this is just from my beliefs, not any sort of political struggle.

    On your second point, I think your reading of my post is a little Freudian :P I believe that structure in society has been completely misread, and it has taken on a life in its own. This is lamentable in academic philosophy, but downright dangerous when it is politicized. I fear that liberalism and progressivism will use it as a tool to paint issues in black and white. I view arguments for abortion that seek to understand where it fits in broken social structures as positive, despite my pro-life beliefs. However, if someone were to place their argument by saying "anti-abotion legislature is a societal impulse to strip women of power" they might be able to get a lot of supporters with terribly ill-founded rhetoric.

    @Corvus: Indeed, but I think that before our view of tradition came from our volition, whereas now people view it as something outside our control, an entity of it's own right.

    Podly on
    follow my music twitter soundcloud tumblr
    9pr1GIh.jpg?1
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    Podly wrote: »
    (s)ociety is brilliant and I love it.
    Podly wrote: »
    Tradition should be something that we control, as should to a lesser extent society.
    Podly wrote: »
    Tradition and society are flawed because people are flawed. Tradition has great things that we pass on to our kids, yet we also pass some hurtful things unto the next generation, mostly out of ignorance.


    So, Society is brilliant, tradition and society ought to be controlled by us, and tradition and society are flawed.

    True. Your point?

    People can choose to not celebrate Christmas. Christmas is a tradition and within some societies it is celebrated. If an individual within that society does not desire to celebrate it then they don't celebrate it.

    So, what are <i>you</i> talking about?

    _J_ on
  • PodlyPodly you unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    _J_ wrote: »
    Podly wrote: »
    (s)ociety is brilliant and I love it.
    Podly wrote: »
    Tradition should be something that we control, as should to a lesser extent society.
    Podly wrote: »
    Tradition and society are flawed because people are flawed. Tradition has great things that we pass on to our kids, yet we also pass some hurtful things unto the next generation, mostly out of ignorance.


    So, Society is brilliant, tradition and society ought to be controlled by us, and tradition and society are flawed.

    True. Your point?

    People can choose to not celebrate Christmas. Christmas is a tradition and within some societies it is celebrated. If an individual within that society does not desire to celebrate it then they don't celebrate it.

    So, what are <i>you</i> talking about?

    Nope. I feel that I've explained it pretty well in my most recent few posts.

    Podly on
    follow my music twitter soundcloud tumblr
    9pr1GIh.jpg?1
  • AldoAldo Hippo Hooray Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Wait, are we talking about New York City, East Coast, USA, Occident, world? :?

    Aldo on
  • PodlyPodly you unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Aldo wrote: »
    Wait, are we talking about New York City, East Coast, USA, Occident, world? :?

    The West, mostly

    Podly on
    follow my music twitter soundcloud tumblr
    9pr1GIh.jpg?1
  • CorvusCorvus . VancouverRegistered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Corvus wrote: »
    Podly wrote: »
    Nevertheless, there is an increasing trend to think of "Tradition"(2) as a force of it's own, which we have no control over.

    I don't really think you can argue that this is a new phenomenon. Tradtion, or custom, or whatever you want to call it has been a powerful force in society, probably for nearly as long as we've had societies.

    That's not what he's arguing. He's saying that tradition is being perceived not as part of society but as an independent force, out of our control, separate from us and yet affecting us dramatically, and that such a conception is dangerous.

    Hmm. I don't really see that as anything new either.

    Corvus on
    :so_raven:
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    Podly wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    Podly wrote: »
    (s)ociety is brilliant and I love it.
    Podly wrote: »
    Tradition should be something that we control, as should to a lesser extent society.
    Podly wrote: »
    Tradition and society are flawed because people are flawed. Tradition has great things that we pass on to our kids, yet we also pass some hurtful things unto the next generation, mostly out of ignorance.


    So, Society is brilliant, tradition and society ought to be controlled by us, and tradition and society are flawed.

    True. Your point?

    People can choose to not celebrate Christmas. Christmas is a tradition and within some societies it is celebrated. If an individual within that society does not desire to celebrate it then they don't celebrate it.

    So, what are <i>you</i> talking about?

    Nope. I feel that I've explained it pretty well in my most recent few posts.

    Well bully for you.

    Are we talking about Church and State and how these influence society and tradition? Are we talking about individuals within society and the manner in which they subscribe to tradition? What sorts of traditions? What sorts of societies?

    What do you mean by "I believe that structure in society has been completely misread, and it has taken on a life in its own."? Because society exists in the act of societal beings exercising it.

    In two pages this thread has thrown around "state", "church", "society", "tradition", "secularism" and many other topics which are themselves terrifically complicated and has somehow tried to combine them all into a sensible conversation.

    What are we talking about?

    _J_ on
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2007
    syrion wrote: »
    Elki wrote: »
    Do you guys even attempt to read the OP before posting?

    Yep. I just see a flaw in his elucidation of his premise: names are not gender-restricted because of some horrible plot, but rather mostly linguistically. French-derived names, for example, tend to add '-ette' and '-anne' and so on to signal femininity. It's not religious or even particularly cultural, it's just the way the language works. Claude/Claudette, Jean/Jeanne, Mari/Marianne, and so on. The same thing happens in other languages, though we mostly use Biblical and Latin-derived names these days. Take, for example, the English names Hailey and Hadley. First is used for girls, second for boys. Tan, Tania. First for boys, second for girls.

    Sometimes names are chosen for meaning: a boy will be "Strength," a girl "Grace."

    I suppose you might argue that those gender roles are unfair, but that's entirely separate from the issue of names.

    What about Tiffany?

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited December 2007
    _J_ wrote: »
    What are we talking about?

    I have been wondering that since the OP.

    Podly: Less stream-of-consciousness and "The world looks like this to me," more -discussion points-.

    Incenjucar on
  • DiscGraceDiscGrace Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Podly wrote: »
    DiscGrace wrote: »
    I'm going to have to disagree that we live in a post-secular world. The Church still enjoys a great deal of control in most people's lives these days - not with laws so much as exerting their will through people's beliefs. Thinking you're going to go to hell for eternity if you don't follow what your pastor says and obey the by-laws of the church (and, usually, give them money) is a pretty good source of control if you ask me. I'd consider myself (and, uh, Loren Michael for example) diametrically opposed to the Church, for example.

    I do agree though that it is often a human trait to despise in others (even abstract others) what we dislike in ourselves. But not everything we despise is an example of that reflection (unless you think I'm secretly a pious misogynist?). Pointing out things that need to be changed is the only way they get changed, and while we can't do much to alter the beliefs of those who constitute Society, we can do as much as we can do dismantle the institutionalizations of those beliefs.

    I agree that defining our society as "post-secular" is kind of hard. However, by it's very notion, secularism means freedom from religious persecution. Yes, the church does exert an extremely great influence over society. However, this influence is not power. As much as it may try, the church itself cannot step in and ban gay marriage universally. Likewise, the state can no longer dictate, for the most part, how we act. You can be opposed to it - I'm diametrically opposed to those who oppose religion, I guess, but this is just from my beliefs, not any sort of political struggle.

    On your second point, I think your reading of my post is a little Freudian :P I believe that structure in society has been completely misread, and it has taken on a life in its own. This is lamentable in academic philosophy, but downright dangerous when it is politicized. I fear that liberalism and progressivism will use it as a tool to paint issues in black and white. I view arguments for abortion that seek to understand where it fits in broken social structures as positive, despite my pro-life beliefs. However, if someone were to place their argument by saying "anti-abotion legislature is a societal impulse to strip women of power" they might be able to get a lot of supporters with terribly ill-founded rhetoric.

    @Corvus: Indeed, but I think that before our view of tradition came from our volition, whereas now people view it as something outside our control, an entity of it's own right.

    I think we are viewing what it means to have power over people in very different ways. True, the Church can't just make an announcement and say "Gay marriage is now forbidden! Ha ha!" But it has convinced many people that allowing two men or two women to marry is akin to letting a man marry a box turtle, that gay marriage would be the downfall of modern civilization, that gay couples want to be able to marry so they can adopt children for perverse purposes, etc, etc. And people believe them, because the Church speaks from a (false, in my opinion) position of moral and historical authority. And those people then go out and vote the way the Church says they ought to. For a large enough value of influence, influence = power.

    I'm not even sure to start with your fear that progressivism will lead to things being painted only in black and white. There's a lot of "for us or against us!" rhetoric out there, and most of it ain't coming from the left wing. I don't really understand your abortion example, either. In what way is stripping women of bodily autonomy an example of ill-founded rhetoric? (Although maybe this isn't a good thread to start digging into that area.)

    DiscGrace on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Evil MultifariousEvil Multifarious Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Scalfin wrote: »
    syrion wrote: »
    Elki wrote: »
    Do you guys even attempt to read the OP before posting?

    Yep. I just see a flaw in his elucidation of his premise: names are not gender-restricted because of some horrible plot, but rather mostly linguistically. French-derived names, for example, tend to add '-ette' and '-anne' and so on to signal femininity. It's not religious or even particularly cultural, it's just the way the language works. Claude/Claudette, Jean/Jeanne, Mari/Marianne, and so on. The same thing happens in other languages, though we mostly use Biblical and Latin-derived names these days. Take, for example, the English names Hailey and Hadley. First is used for girls, second for boys. Tan, Tania. First for boys, second for girls.

    Sometimes names are chosen for meaning: a boy will be "Strength," a girl "Grace."

    I suppose you might argue that those gender roles are unfair, but that's entirely separate from the issue of names.

    What about Tiffany?

    I hear she makes a pretty good breakfast.

    Evil Multifarious on
  • CorvusCorvus . VancouverRegistered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Podly wrote: »
    I agree that defining our society as "post-secular" is kind of hard. However, by it's very notion, secularism means freedom from religious persecution. Yes, the church does exert an extremely great influence over society. However, this influence is not power. As much as it may try, the church itself cannot step in and ban gay marriage universally. Likewise, the state can no longer dictate, for the most part, how we act. You can be opposed to it - I'm diametrically opposed to those who oppose religion, I guess, but this is just from my beliefs, not any sort of political struggle.

    Influence is very much power. It's just indirect, rather than direct.

    Corvus on
    :so_raven:
Sign In or Register to comment.