Identification is absolutely necessary for reason, but within this category and context, it does us a disservice, IMO. We should see "human, homo sapien" and not some tribal identity. Making identity decisions about an individual based on characteristics of a group is a fallacy.
We may well see someones "tribal identity" if it is in fact there, but I can agree that we shouldn't try to create "tribalism" and that we shouldn't force a stereotype onto the individual. Collectivism is a huge problem, while individualism most definately is the answer.
Now, someone might look at that last statement of mine and suggest that I don't "polarize", but that on the other hand is not a claim I buy. Some people are individualists and some people are collectivists. The fact that there are many degrees and variations, which I of course recognize and give significant importance to, doesn't actually negate this aspect.
This is why, for example, I think it's disgraceful when some people suggest that a black person should be refered to as "african american" when even his/her grandparents never set foot in Africa.
I think there could be reasons to even frown upon the concept of calling a black person a black person. I do it too, so I'm not gonna tell you what's right or wrong, but consider this:
What if instead of black person, we just use the word person?
Or "scientifically minded person" or "poetic person", or "passionate person", or just "hard working person".
There are many ways to describe a person, and race is one of those which is inborn, and cannot be chosen. That makes it irrelevant for those of us who try to see individuals as individuals, rather than as a tribe, collective, or other sort of group.
Think of trees within a forest. Each tree has its own story, and although they may make up a forest, and their roots may form deep knots around each other, each tree is still an individual. The forest is the illusion. Only the individual trees are real.
I want to see the individual trees, not the forest.
I think there could be reasons to even frown upon the concept of calling a black person a black person.
I totally agree. That's not a word we normally use where I'm from, but I would consider it better as long as everyone knows it's a simplification for "darker skinned" etc.
Or "scientifically minded person" or "poetic person", or "passionate person", or just "hard working person".
That's a great idea in most cases. As an individualist I'm of course 100% in agreement with you, except for those cases where ethinicity is an actual factor. (and there are many such valid cases, such as when searching for a specific person, doing scientific research, prescribing drugs etc)
I see a dangerous trend in the U.S. currently where people are taking DNA tests and then proudly refering to themselves as a certain percentage "European" or "Asian" etc. It may seem like harmless fun, but this is how the hardcore racists have behaved for a long time and it is confusing ethnicity with nationality and cultural heritage.
I have a pretty heavy disdain of culture and nationality, to be honest.
I guess there's some existing sentiment out there, where people say things like,
"Some might get confused about my position and think I'm against culture or cultural diversity. Far from it. Our differences, heritage, and groupings can bring about incredible beauty, diversity, creativity, and new ways of thinking.
But where does this actually happen? Where is culture not a detriment to anyone not in that culture? And even if a few outliers exist, like maybe one culture that's really benevolent, or maybe they have great food, I can't help but view culture as a thing that's inborn, and undecided by the individual who lives in that culture.
It might just be because I was raised in modern internet culture, and so the ways of more primitive, tribal societies just look primitive to me. Primitive, inefficient, unintelligent, and generally just a step out of feral ape-hood.
It's inspiring an essay even now. Check out my profile in a day and I might have a new essay about culture, or rather, the disdain of culture from the perspective of a person in a beautiful culture.
Culture is what we do and influence others to do habitually, based on principles that we share. So culture is not something we are born with, but something that we are always (in one current form or another) born into.
But the individual still makes his own culture, hence why we have subcultures.
I think the risk is going to the extreme and promoting "multiculturalism" when one actually just mean that people should have a right to behave as they like and exchange cultural information as long as they don't harm anyone. This makes society better, if we adopt the right principles.
Just mixing a bunch of different cultures because we make a badly thought through decission to value them all "equally" (they could be equally good, bad, extreme, mediocre etc) is a very bad idea however. Then we're just avoiding making a decission as to what is right and wrong. With such thinking there is no longer even any known reason to resist dictatorship or other horrible practices.
Identification is absolutely necessary for reason, but within this category and context, it does us a disservice, IMO. We should see "human, homo sapien" and not some tribal identity. Making identity decisions about an individual based on characteristics of a group is a fallacy.
We may well see someones "tribal identity" if it is in fact there, but I can agree that we shouldn't try to create "tribalism" and that we shouldn't force a stereotype onto the individual. Collectivism is a huge problem, while individualism most definately is the answer.
Now, someone might look at that last statement of mine and suggest that I don't "polarize", but that on the other hand is not a claim I buy. Some people are individualists and some people are collectivists. The fact that there are many degrees and variations, which I of course recognize and give significant importance to, doesn't actually negate this aspect.
This is why, for example, I think it's disgraceful when some people suggest that a black person should be refered to as "african american" when even his/her grandparents never set foot in Africa.
I think there could be reasons to even frown upon the concept of calling a black person a black person. I do it too, so I'm not gonna tell you what's right or wrong, but consider this:
What if instead of black person, we just use the word person?
Or "scientifically minded person" or "poetic person", or "passionate person", or just "hard working person".
There are many ways to describe a person, and race is one of those which is inborn, and cannot be chosen. That makes it irrelevant for those of us who try to see individuals as individuals, rather than as a tribe, collective, or other sort of group.
Think of trees within a forest. Each tree has its own story, and although they may make up a forest, and their roots may form deep knots around each other, each tree is still an individual. The forest is the illusion. Only the individual trees are real.
I want to see the individual trees, not the forest.
What do you think?
I totally agree. That's not a word we normally use where I'm from, but I would consider it better as long as everyone knows it's a simplification for "darker skinned" etc.
That's a great idea in most cases. As an individualist I'm of course 100% in agreement with you, except for those cases where ethinicity is an actual factor. (and there are many such valid cases, such as when searching for a specific person, doing scientific research, prescribing drugs etc)
I see a dangerous trend in the U.S. currently where people are taking DNA tests and then proudly refering to themselves as a certain percentage "European" or "Asian" etc. It may seem like harmless fun, but this is how the hardcore racists have behaved for a long time and it is confusing ethnicity with nationality and cultural heritage.
I have a pretty heavy disdain of culture and nationality, to be honest.
I guess there's some existing sentiment out there, where people say things like,
But where does this actually happen? Where is culture not a detriment to anyone not in that culture? And even if a few outliers exist, like maybe one culture that's really benevolent, or maybe they have great food, I can't help but view culture as a thing that's inborn, and undecided by the individual who lives in that culture.
It might just be because I was raised in modern internet culture, and so the ways of more primitive, tribal societies just look primitive to me. Primitive, inefficient, unintelligent, and generally just a step out of feral ape-hood.
It's inspiring an essay even now. Check out my profile in a day and I might have a new essay about culture, or rather, the disdain of culture from the perspective of a person in a beautiful culture.
Culture is what we do and influence others to do habitually, based on principles that we share. So culture is not something we are born with, but something that we are always (in one current form or another) born into.
But the individual still makes his own culture, hence why we have subcultures.
I think the risk is going to the extreme and promoting "multiculturalism" when one actually just mean that people should have a right to behave as they like and exchange cultural information as long as they don't harm anyone. This makes society better, if we adopt the right principles.
Just mixing a bunch of different cultures because we make a badly thought through decission to value them all "equally" (they could be equally good, bad, extreme, mediocre etc) is a very bad idea however. Then we're just avoiding making a decission as to what is right and wrong. With such thinking there is no longer even any known reason to resist dictatorship or other horrible practices.
Did you see my newest post?
You might like it, and I wouldn't mind seeing your own post as a response.
I've got a post coming on this subject, only I havn't written it yet... :P and I'm writing something else right now. But I'll check your post!