Political Crossfire Forums

[Saracen]

This is my first post in a long time here in the Philosophy forum. I'm not much of a philosopher but I'm here to ask the philosophical crowd out there for a little bit of help on this one. I was thinking over it for the past few days ever since I was embroiled in an argument about the so-called "clash of cultures" and "clash of ideologies".

Here's how I thought about the whole issue.

Cultures and ideas are not material things, and therefore can not physically clash or be that monumental. One can consider the so-called "clash" between the "West" and the "East". For there to be a "clash", you must have people representing those sides; after all, what's an idea without a brain to conceive it? Now, following this, I propose that if these cultures or ideas were to "clash" or get into conflict with each other, it would assume that every single person representative of these two societies would be involved in this conflict. However, when it is obvious that there are some "Westernized" Easterners and "Easternized" Westerners and those in between, one could say that there is no conflict.

I also considered the point that if such ideas were to clash, there would be an even more monumental conflict than what we are seeing today, and that would be in my opinion at least nonsensical. Thus, one could say that if ideas were to clash, they would involve a lot of people and a lot of conflicting arguments, when in fact we are talking about extremes and people arguing over their differences and their apparent intolerance towards that particular idea.

So, my question is this: can ideas clash, or would it be a nonsensical argument to begin with, considering what I said and what any of you might add?

Thanks in advance.

[WorldCitizenMovement]

Saracen wrote: This is my first post in a long time here in the Philosophy forum. I'm not much of a philosopher but I'm here to ask the philosophical crowd out there for a little bit of help on this one. I was thinking over it for the past few days ever since I was embroiled in an argument about the so-called "clash of cultures" and "clash of ideologies".

Here's how I thought about the whole issue.

Cultures and ideas are not material things, and therefore can not physically clash or be that monumental. One can consider the so-called "clash" between the "West" and the "East". For there to be a "clash", you must have people representing those sides; after all, what's an idea without a brain to conceive it? Now, following this, I propose that if these cultures or ideas were to "clash" or get into conflict with each other, it would assume that every single person representative of these two societies would be involved in this conflict. However, when it is obvious that there are some "Westernized" Easterners and "Easternized" Westerners and those in between, one could say that there is no conflict.

I also considered the point that if such ideas were to clash, there would be an even more monumental conflict than what we are seeing today, and that would be in my opinion at least nonsensical. Thus, one could say that if ideas were to clash, they would involve a lot of people and a lot of conflicting arguments, when in fact we are talking about extremes and people arguing over their differences and their apparent intolerance towards that particular idea.

So, my question is this: can ideas clash, or would it be a nonsensical argument to begin with, considering what I said and what any of you might add?

Thanks in advance.

I disagree, (which i think proves the last argument of your last paragraph)

The words "culture" and "idea" may not be material things, however, but applied to the real world they are material things. To label either non- material things, in essence, terminates their whole representative form. It simply doesnt make sense to say a clash between cultures cannot exist because neither side opposing one another are non-material things. Whats the difference between two human beings interracting in a conversation? Do neither exist as well as the conversation because they are non-material things?

In the essence of its philosophical definition, words are non-material things, ideas are non-material things. However, the fact we are cognizant of material things through our conscious recognition through non-material things (which is simply the identification used through our capacities of language), in reality, solidifies non-material things as material things.

I guess what im trying to say is that it doesnt make any sense at all to say something material cannot exist simply because the word we use to recognize it as a material thing isnt material.

Another point I would like to make is this: if a culture isnt a material thing, or an idea, or an event between ideas or cultures...prove to me it doesnt exist. In my opinion, I think the fact that I am cognizant of an idea or a culture, is the only required proof I need to say an idea or a culture does exist.

As a last point on your supposition where you say, "However, when it is obvious that there are some "Westernized" Easterners and "Easternized" Westerners and those in between, one could say that there is no conflict."...doesnt make sense.

I think your mixing up immigration and emmigration with philosophical definitions. Of course there were tens of thousands of Asians and Germans in America and possibly a substantial amount of Americans living in Japan or Germany during world war two. However, to say World War two could not have existed because either culture was present in either geography at the time of the conflict doesnt make sense.

[Saracen]

^That's a good point, but I just want to remind you that I'm no philosophy expert. Now, let's assume that you have two people arguing over something, or two factions fighting over something. Incidentally, they come from different cultures or have different ideologies. Let's say that there is something within their ideologies that prompted one of the sides to attack the other. Would this fight be a clash of ideologies or not? Help me out. Thanks again in advance.

[Fido]

Ideas do not clash. People clash, with ideas as the excuse, and self being the reason.

[NeedsREALfreedom]

The phrase "war of ideas" is over used by the mainstream school of thought. I believe this to be the result of the media attempting to mask the real, more sinister reasons why we war.

After all, if you come out and say that a war is fought over land, resources, or geopolitical spears of influence then you will find a very anti-war populace, at least, for the most part.

A war of ideology, however, is a fight for human nature, a personal war, a vendetta, a war of justice, a war of heroes, dramatic, sad but romantic, good vs. evil, and is justified by that fact that it's combatants truly believe in what they fight for.

The media LOVES war, always have and always will, even when they pretend not to. There are wars of ideologies, but those are called civil wars.

[Saracen]

NeedsREALfreedom wrote: The phrase "war of ideas" is over used by the mainstream school of thought. I believe this to be the result of the media attempting to mask the real, more sinister reasons why we war.

After all, if you come out and say that a war is fought over land, resources, or geopolitical spears of influence then you will find a very anti-war populace, at least, for the most part.

A war of ideology, however, is a fight for human nature, a personal war, a vendetta, a war of justice, a war of heroes, dramatic, sad but romantic, good vs. evil, and is justified by that fact that it's combatants truly believe in what they fight for.

The media LOVES war, always have and always will, even when they pretend not to. There are wars of ideologies, but those are called civil wars.

Ok... I need someone... slowly this time... to explain how ideas can clash. My voting is irrelevant, but I want to know how exactly.

Ideas are non-material things, right? But they're conceived by the material mind. Yet, when there is collectivism in ideas (i.e. a culture or a religion), can these clash? I mean, can two religions and/or cultures clash? Or their people do?

Sorry, guys, but I'm trying to catch up. Hope you can help.

[Fido]

Saracan,

I think I know what you are getting at; and if I may, it is how we talk about ideas that reflects our thinking or lack of thinking, and essentially, our methods of thought.
There is no war of ideas. That is cant, and cant is meaningless and superficial speech, like our first English dictionarian Dr. Johnson, warned against.
People very often do not make the distinctions and connections that make productive thought possible. People often believe they can love inanimate objects like gold, or oil, or money; when really they are associating all these things with something they do love, of a spiritual nature. Sometimes people confuse the idea with what the idea represents. I guess that Hegel was one for this, suggesting a real reality to his ideas, instead of some simple mental identity. I do not believe ideas are more real than people, and I do believe the essential value of any idea is to be found in tangible benefit to humanity. Often the very ideas that we fight for are the least beneficial to all people, but they provide an excuse for the inexcusable. What we justify with ideas is seldom just.
The emotional attachment to ideas, that is: making a fetish of this idea or that idea, is Idolatry. If our ideas do not help us all toward an essential unity like the separate branches of a tree all working together for the greatest peace, affection, and health then they are some kind of affliction that must be endured or ended.

[Saracen]

Fido wrote: Saracan,

I think I know what you are getting at; and if I may, it is how we talk about ideas that reflects our thinking or lack of thinking, and essentially, our methods of thought.
There is no war of ideas. That is cant, and cant is meaningless and superficial speech, like our first English dictionarian Dr. Johnson, warned against.
People very often do not make the distinctions and connections that make productive thought possible. People often believe they can love inanimate objects like gold, or oil, or money; when really they are associating all these things with something they do love, of a spiritual nature. Sometimes people confuse the idea with what the idea represents. I guess that Hegel was one for this, suggesting a real reality to his ideas, instead of some simple mental identity. I do not believe ideas are more real than people, and I do believe the essential value of any idea is to be found in tangible benefit to humanity. Often the very ideas that we fight for are the least beneficial to all people, but they provide an excuse for the inexcusable. What we justify with ideas is seldom just.
The emotional attachment to ideas, that is: making a fetish of this idea or that idea, is Idolatry. If our ideas do not help us all toward an essential unity like the separate branches of a tree all working together for the greatest peace, affection, and health then they are some kind of affliction that must be endured or ended.

Well, thanks for the input, Fido. It clears up a lot.

[Snarf]

The opposite of one profound truth, is usually another profound truth.

Your hell is my heaven and vice versa...

[Berkeley]

Yes, But in my opinion's a person's reality affects how they see the world around them..everyone has there own personal definition of ideals..some people choose to love inaminante objects..even if they understand that it will eventually kill them, that the inaminate object will run out, break ect..It's human nature to believe that we're above it all. However, why do we go to war, why do we choose conflict over talking it over? because we believe something they do not..in some cases that is so, however it is usually the lack of a belief that causes war, in my opinion. Most likely because a nation wishes to enforce their ideals upon another. It happens at minute levels, bettween parents and children and larger scales also..but that's my opinion..