coletureconcept:spetharrific:coletureconcept:Cole, why do you post pictures of yourself with your th
coletureconcept:spetharrific:coletureconcept:Cole, why do you post pictures of yourself with your thoughts on unrelated fields? I do this because this is what people want to see, and once they become hooked by visual temptation, they have a higher chance of reading the actual thought. Aristotle states in The Nicomachian Ethics, that some acts must not be committed, even under torture (1110a 25-27). Yet how does one go about defining what cultural behaviors are to be considered acceptable or unacceptable? The goal of the anthropologist is not to influence localized or universal relativistic/ethnocentric acceptance of any one foreign or domestic behavior, for those interpretations are left to the audience absorbing the anthropologist’s data. One of the goals of the contemporary anthropologist should be the deconstruction of ideas of universalities and cultural or natural laws that dictate how all peoples should react to their associated environs, removing notions of static or “appropriate” ways of life, and to suggest that culture and behavior is reflexive and adaptable. There is no “right” or “wrong” way to live as a group or individual. These two categorizations only become implemented once a foreign culture is subjected to the comparison of behaviors and rituals from another cultural group. The very processes and social implications of cultural categorization is what anthropologists must seek to understand if any cultural behavior is to be objectively analyzed. Therefor, behaviors such as anthropophagy, incest, rape, prostitution, penury, multiple sexual allotment, nudity, homosexuality, and human sacrifice become gold veins of anthropological opportunity. For these, among many others, are the behaviors that tend to be most heavily scrutinized from culture to culture, and it’s from these behaviors that the anthropologist can accrue a relative understanding of the structures of beliefs within the culture under study. TLDR: go back and read, it’s good for the brain.The first sentence is ambiguous: whether the thoughts of different posts are unrelated, but their respective pictures could be (related to the ideas of that post), or whether each picture is associated with thoughts on a field unrelated to the appearing picture. The rest of the paragraph implies that each picture is unrelated but only serves as a facade to interest a prospective reader.Also “people” is a useful generalization, but, as such, it loses the accuracy associated with precise statements. not all people want such a disparity of content. While it may get more people to notice it, it could also lead to people deleting comments and generally ignoring the content trying to be communicated, whereas a picture that at least has some small relevancy would go a long way with those who are much more interested in the matter being discussed and in how connections are drawn.Yet there seem to be some acts which a man cannot be compelled to do, and rather than do them he ought to submit to the most terrible death…— Nicomachian Ethics [x]An immediate appeal to external authority is not the strongest justification in my opinion, but that’s just me. Aristotle was a man; men are fallible; Aristotle was fallible. He was probably well aware of this fact as well. His note was that there “seem” to be some acts, not that there necessarily are. From his moral, ethical, and philosophical standpoint, he reached the conclusion that perhaps there were some actions so abominable that one ought not commit them even under threat of penalty.This still leaves open the possibility that perhaps there are no such actions. It is logically possible that there could exist a penalty so great that none could withstand it. Indeed, Aristotle considers such a case and notes that submission to the act…though not praised is condoned, when a man does something wrong through fear of penalties that impose too great a strain on human nature, and that no one could endure.— Nicomachian Ethics [x]Defining (in)appropriate behavior essentially amounts to defining a moral or ethical code taking into account thespossibilities. Fully defined universal static notions may not be possible, but within a given society, it could be argued that a significantly majority opinion could be a very useful (and not too harmful) simplification of the model to allow greater depth of insight (providing that one keeps in mind that such a model is simplified).I would argue that, within a given society, there are “better” and “worse” ways to live, using the notions developed by the society itself (which seems reasonable— to apply a given set of rules where they already have dominion).These two categorizations only become implemented once a foreign culture is subjected to the comparison of behaviors and rituals from another cultural group.I think it depends on how you define a “culture”. Consider the case: two subgroups of a society share a cultural identity and a set of rituals, behaviors, and a large subset of a pre-defined moral code shared by a vast majority of the society. However, one subgroup has added belief B to their moral code, and the other has grown to adopt ~B (not B) to their moral code. I would argue that these two subgroups should not be considered foreign cultures, but we can still compare between these three: the overarching society and each of the subgroups.Then again, maybe the subgroups should be considered subcultures, in which case this seems to be more of just a terminological failure to define “foreign.”[X] is what anthropologists must seek to understand if any cultural behavior is to be objectively analyzed.Objective analysis of cultural behavior seems like an odd notion. What makes analysis of a culture objective? The culture ought to be described, but how does one choose the characterization of such a description? Certain aspects must be emphasized and others discounted. Some will probably be lost entirely. Granted, perhaps the culture itself already emphasizes certain aspects.One way to interpret how to choose behaviors to look at then might be to generally pick something that we consider “evil” or “bad” and see whether or not other cultures agree(d) with us. This hardly seems like an objective way to go about analysis.I’m also not sure that penury should be considered a behavior, but that’s not as relevant. As a concept though, i do think it could be insightful to see how a culture handled people living under such conditions.But then again, this is all beyond my usual realms of consideration so I have no real authority to make claims here. My offerings are generally just those of logical critique, not necessarily useful in any sort of constructive sense. I can’t say what things should be; I can only point to where I see disparities. In any case, these are thoughts. If necessary, someone should teach me rudimentary anthro skills so I actually have some clue what I’m talking about.My first couple sentences are making reference to the notion that my most popular posts are the ones that include my face within the picture. I recognize this, and utilize it so that more people will possibly reach at the overarching theme. I would hope you have the ability to avoid the scrutiny of every word, and hold the ability to grasp at the larger concept within the paper. “People” is used generally, and serves its large, encompassing purpose. A philosopher like Aristotle is a correct choice, for an appeal to external authority is precisely what I want people to question, as suggested in the next sentence, and judging by your response, it seemed to have worked. On inappropriate behaviorI agree with your first paragraph. However, “better” and “worse” ways to live is an effect of what is culturally deemed unacceptable/acceptable. Once a behavior has been thrust into the realm of accepted, it is typically because it has become normalized by repeated practice. A behavior is pushed as unacceptable due to its lack of familiarity or strength in utilization (among other suggested implications). Subgroups A and B both come upon the same belief (b), but that doesn’t suggest they go about practicing this belief in a similar fashion. Christianity can be practiced in a multitude of ways, and yet I would not consider Catholicism and Protestantism the same culture (and I don’t think the followers would either). On Objective AnalysisThis stems from my belief that anthropology and its subdivisions should be treated as a science, and therefor utilize the scientific cycle (however appropriate) with the goal of reaching an objective, systematic body of knowledge. One can analyze a culture objectively by carefully removing paradigm from scholarly data, and reaching for the empirical, social, political, etc. implications of cultural behaviors. I understand your point on the narratives produced however, for historians encounter a similar problem when weaving history: paradigms will eventually come into discussion and potentially skew data. Let us not forget however, that the scholar must have the ability to remove the authors paradigm and his/her own paradigm/interpretations from collection of data (however difficult this may prove to be). With a notion placed on the idea that it may be outright improbable. An anthropologist can pick on the subjective behaviors labeled “evil” or “bad” and try to reveal why they were categorized as such, while also uncovering the cultural implications of said behavior, this alone would prove a successful ethnography. Great read, fantastic response. You and I just came at two different sides of an argument in the social sciences: Processualism and anti-processualism. I hope you allow the sending of mail in the future, keep posted. -- source link