Culture

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

Preservation is not inherently bad, it becomes bad when it stands in the way of something greater, be it progress or what have you. I do understand where you are coming from, however, I am just emphasizing the human role in the derogatory effects it can sometimes have.

By definition the only time preservation is necessary is when something usually greater will overwrite it.

Originally Posted by The Arbitrator

If he had actually responded with an argument I might have another choice.

To be fair I did respond with an arguement, and I never weilded it as fact I just stated my beliefs on the subject.

I feel culture is worth preserving for its historical and binding factor... Culture is not the sole reason for Bias in the world, there will always be those people prejudiced for reasons other then culture, xenophobia extends far beyond what just the cultural aspect.

But as I was saying, the idea of culture is unique and has alt to do with the human element if you ask me... For culture is just as much a result of human development as anything else. The Greeks and Romans put forth their own uniqueness into their studies, their way of thinkings was a result of the freedoms their culture offered and it allowed them to make great discoveries and innovations, which were reflected in the arcitecture , art, literature and even military.

The Egyptians are best known for their pyramids and mummies, but the mummy itself is a brillant peice of science, the process is difficult but amazing in the end result, a process of preserveration that was incorporated into Egyptian culture.

Disagree if you wish, as I expect, but all I'm trying to say is innovation and culture can be quite the same in that one reflects upon the other; look at the British for example, from Medieval times of England, through the Enlightenment Era, England went from a plate armoured country to an empire of 'gentlemen' the industry giant of its day, it didn't happen over night but it was ideas, ideas from individuals that allowed for this evolution, whether it be from factory owners, enlightenment thinkers or military leaders who shaped the country, its culture became the one of the British Empire.

Originally Posted by The Arbitrator

By definition the only time preservation is necessary is when something usually greater will overwrite it.

Right, and depending on what you intend to preserve it can be good or bad.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

Right, and depending on what you intend to preserve it can be good or bad.

But that's the point - the only time preservation becomes necessary is when something better comes along that threatens to overwrite whatever you're trying to preserve. If it wasn't better, there'd be no need to preserve it, because no one would want it. If it didn't encroach on whatever was being preserved, then again there'd be no need to preserve it.

Originally Posted by BEHIND THE MASK

To be fair I did respond with an arguement, and I never weilded it as fact I just stated my beliefs on the subject.

What you basically said was "that's just like your opinion man".

I feel culture is worth preserving for its historical and binding factor... Culture is not the sole reason for Bias in the world, there will always be those people prejudiced for reasons other then culture, xenophobia extends far beyond what just the cultural aspect.

This is true, but saying that there are other bad things in the world doesn't detract from the evils of cultural preservation either. Just because we have guns too doesn't mean that knives aren't also bad.

But as I was saying, the idea of culture is unique

Idiosyncracy is not an argument.

and has alt to do with the human element if you ask me... For culture is just as much a result of human development as anything else. The Greeks and Romans put forth their own uniqueness into their studies, their way of thinkings was a result of the freedoms their culture offered and it allowed them to make great discoveries and innovations, which were reflected in the arcitecture , art, literature and even military.

The Egyptians are best known for their pyramids and mummies, but the mummy itself is a brillant peice of science, the process is difficult but amazing in the end result, a process of preserveration that was incorporated into Egyptian culture.

Disagree if you wish, as I expect, but all I'm trying to say is innovation and culture can be quite the same in that one reflects upon the other; look at the British for example, from Medieval times of England, through the Enlightenment Era, England went from a plate armoured country to an empire of 'gentlemen' the industry giant of its day, it didn't happen over night but it was ideas, ideas from individuals that allowed for this evolution, whether it be from factory owners, enlightenment thinkers or military leaders who shaped the country, its culture became the one of the British Empire.

Yes, ideas from individuals which caused culture to change and evolve. Culture is a state of things, if they'd had cultural preservation laws back then we'd never have seen the cultural changes as you're describing, which is what I'm trying to tell you - if you value tradition and culture so much that you believe it must be protected at the expense of progress in one manner or another, you're standing in the way of that kind of cultural change to begin with. Those changes were caused by incorporating a variety of cultures into the "melting pot", which is why people saying "British culture" is such a delicious irony - British culture itself is a mix of cultures from around the world. If there had been such a cultural preservation as people today want though? The British Empire would be more of a Britannic Tribe.

Originally Posted by The Arbitrator

if they'd had cultural preservation laws back then we'd never have seen the cultural changes as you're describing, which is what I'm trying to tell you - the world.

If it were not for the Muslims, the Byzantines, all those who preserved the learnings of Roman and Greek thought then we would not be here! They did preserve culture! Even then, as they preserved it they improved upon!

Had it not been for the Byzantines, with their preservation of old ideas then whoses to say the Dark Ages would have continued!

It was only when those ideas, through the Renaissance, the revival of lost ideas that the world expanded as it did! Preservation offers a pool of knowledge from which future generations can look back to and bask in glory and knowledge... Culture has always been preserved by the populance for as long as they could muster; its why Persian civilization did not collapse after Alexander The Great conquered them, it was blended with Hellenic ideas but the identity of 'Persia' remained... The Turks were nomadic peoples, conquerors from the East, whose capture of Constantinople pushed ideas West, but the Turks, an asiatic people, today are hard to distinguish from other mediterraneans peoples, but they hold dear their rich culture, and yet have taken on Western ideas, but preserved their own.

Russian democracy is a mix of old Russians ways and the idea of Democracy. The leader is voted in but like Tsars and Chairmen before, the power seems absolute... But through their preservation of their ways, and blending of other ideas created new Russia, one fitted to the slavic identity.

History is full of preservation and expansion, expansion from the ideas of an old century that allowed this one to be molded.

But that's the point - the only time preservation becomes necessary is when something better comes along that threatens to overwrite whatever you're trying to preserve. If it wasn't better, there'd be no need to preserve it, because no one would want it. If it didn't encroach on whatever was being preserved, then again there'd be no need to preserve it.

No need is correct but preserving something generally doesn't come down to need.

Originally Posted by Andross

What if the world were to abandon completely distinct cultures, however? What if the world were to break all barriers and become a "global melting pot," mixing all the ideas from all the different cultures in to one single metaculture? If that were to happen (And it is happening, gradually),

How is it happening?

I've nothing against old cultures, but I strongly oppose attempts to artificially keep them dominant, such as what Quebec is trying to do.

Cultures change over time. It's natural. Preserving an old culture just because it's old is foolish in the extreme, and causes social, technological, and intellectual stagnation.

For proof, just look at pre-Renaissance Europe. Every attempt was made to try and keep as much Greek and Roman culture as was possible. This lead to a massive stagnation of ideas and society. It was only after a large intellectual movement threw everything out and started again that the Enlightenment started.

Originally Posted by Evilsbane

Waaaay more interracial relationships than 100 years ago, for example. More multiculturalism, more awareness of other cultures, more blending of cultural concepts (Modern American comics now draw heavily from Japanese manga, which in turn were inspired by older American Comics), more travel and tourism, etc etc etc.


Agreed. Preserving them in an historical context is more productive. Did you know that in France, there are laws compelling radio stations to play a minimum percentage of French songs?

Just like how Canadian TV stations need to show a certain amount of Canadian content, and English signs in Quebec cannot be larger than French ones.

Originally Posted by BEHIND THE MASK

If it were not for the Muslims, the Byzantines, all those who preserved the learnings of Roman and Greek thought then we would not be here! They did preserve culture! Even then, as they preserved it they improved upon!

Had it not been for the Byzantines, with their preservation of old ideas then whoses to say the Dark Ages would have continued!

They used those ideas not because they were cultural and needed to be preserved, but because they were genuinely good ideas and stood on their own merit without needing to be preserved. Again, cultural preservation is where you try to protect culture from being changed or mutated.

It was only when those ideas, through the Renaissance, the revival of lost ideas that the world expanded as it did! Preservation offers a pool of knowledge from which future generations can look back to and bask in glory and knowledge... Culture has always been preserved by the populance for as long as they could muster; its why Persian civilization did not collapse after Alexander The Great conquered them, it was blended with Hellenic ideas but the identity of 'Persia' remained...

Cultural mixing, this is the perfect example of a "mixing pot". If you preserved culture, you would not have such a mixing pot. You don't seem to understand that this is not cultural preservation, as it allows culture to change. Just because it's under the same name doesn't mean it's the same culture, and doesn't mean it was "preserved".

The Turks were nomadic peoples, conquerors from the East, whose capture of Constantinople pushed ideas West, but the Turks, an asiatic people, today are hard to distinguish from other mediterraneans peoples, but they hold dear their rich culture, and yet have taken on Western ideas, but preserved their own.

If they've taken on Western ideas then again their culture has mutated and become a mixing pot where different ideas have bred.

Russian democracy is a mix of old Russians ways and the idea of Democracy. The leader is voted in but like Tsars and Chairmen before, the power seems absolute... But through their preservation of their ways, and blending of other ideas created new Russia, one fitted to the slavic identity.

That's nothing to do with culture, that's to do with Putin's wish to stay in power. It's not a fusion of the idea of the Tsars with democratic government, it's just Putin wanting to stay in power.

History is full of preservation and expansion, expansion from the ideas of an old century that allowed this one to be molded.

Expansion and mutation, but not preservation, as I have explained. Cultural preservation would allow little, if any, incorporation of ideas that originated from other cultures for fear of destruction of the original cultural identity. Persia after incorporating Hellenic culture may still have been called Persia, but it was a different Persia to what it was before. This is not cultural preservation. Britain after becoming a country of "gentlemen" rather than a country of knights was a different Britain to what it was before. Culture changed. Culture evolved. If you were to pass laws to preserve culture, you would have none of that.


Right now, what you are saying is "look at all the good things that came from culture!" I'm not arguing that culture is either good or bad. Culture is a state of existence, like reality - I can't have an opinion, it is simply a fact of life. There will always be culture, whether the world becomes a mixing pot or not. What I AM saying is that to stand in the way of cultural evolution by attempting to preserve something that has none of its own merit, only to ensure that your heritage or your national identity is protected, has no benefit whatsoever but to stand in the way of progress.

Originally Posted by FlamesOfValor

No need is correct but preserving something generally doesn't come down to need.

Exactly, and so there's no benefit to it. It's just bitter old men trying to stop things from changing, trying to stop the future from becoming the present by clinging to the past.

Originally Posted by The Arbitrator

They used those ideas not because they were cultural and needed to be preserved, but because they were genuinely good ideas and stood on their own merit without needing to be preserved. Again, cultural preservation is where you try to protect culture from being changed or mutated..

But the cultural aspect was a major part of those ideas... the Greek way of thinking was apart of that cultural aspect that shaped the Roman Republic and later the Empire. Cultural Preservation is not trying to protect or keep it unchanged, in one definition perhaps but we speak of different definitions then... Surely preserving culture, through artifacts, texts, records, and ideas is what allows us to learn from past experiences and develop new ideas.

Cultural mixing, this is the perfect example of a "mixing pot". If you preserved culture, you would not have such a mixing pot. You don't seem to understand that this is not cultural preservation, as it allows culture to change. Just because it's under the same name doesn't mean it's the same culture, and doesn't mean it was "preserved".

And again i'm arguing cultural preservation in my definition, cultural mixing blends aspects of cultures but to an extent preserves and maintains different aspects of each respectfully... Culture always changes but it remains in roots to the developers of that culture; superstitions and myths remain even today amongst some cultures that were there many, many years ago... and to that extent the ideas are preserved.

If they've taken on Western ideas then again their culture has mutated and become a mixing pot where different ideas have bred.

I've never argued against the whole mixing pot thing or that culture is mutationg today... But what I'm saying is that preservation of traditional cultures needs to take place, not through practice, dont get me wrong, but through texts and records... But surely even then different ideas bred from the influences of other cultures, taking admirable aspects and applying them elsewhere, such a feature would not have occured if culture wasn't preserved to some point... Whether the aspect to arcitecture, art or even food.

That's nothing to do with culture, that's to do with Putin's wish to stay in power. It's not a fusion of the idea of the Tsars with democratic government, it's just Putin wanting to stay in power.

Its not just Putin, though it can easily be assosiated with just him, the Russian constitution grants more power to the president then the American one.

Though it may still have been to early in modern Russian democracy to argue this point.

Expansion and mutation, but not preservation, as I have explained. Cultural preservation would allow little, if any, incorporation of ideas that originated from other cultures for fear of destruction of the original cultural identity. Persia after incorporating Hellenic culture may still have been called Persia, but it was a different Persia to what it was before. This is not cultural preservation. Britain after becoming a country of "gentlemen" rather than a country of knights was a different Britain to what it was before. Culture changed. Culture evolved. If you were to pass laws to preserve culture, you would have none of that.

You have explained... I have explained... You've disagreed... I've disagreed... And so the vicious circle plays out once more.

Preservation, as I've explained is needed so that the populance has reserves of knowledge through text or learning to which they can look back on, read over, form new ideas, and put those ideas into practice. Do you argue that no apsects of old Persia remained? That overnight they all turned Greek, the cultures mixed, yes but Persian aspects remained. I've said culture evolves, changes, but preservation is not as dogmatic as you believe... I dont believe in preservation, as in what Quebec , but through archieves, records and historical value! There should be no need to pass laws to really preserve culture...

Right now, what you are saying is "look at all the good things that came from culture!" I'm not arguing that culture is either good or bad. Culture is a state of existence, like reality - I can't have an opinion, it is simply a fact of life. There will always be culture, whether the world becomes a mixing pot or not. What I AM saying is that to stand in the way of cultural evolution by attempting to preserve something that has none of its own merit, only to ensure that your heritage or your national identity is protected, has no benefit whatsoever but to stand in the way of progress.

Perhaps were finally getting somehwere... but I'm just trying to say that preservation does not mean the stop of this evolution, alot of good did come from culture but, and alot of bad can... But just because culture has the capacity for bad does not mean it shouldn't be remembered or preserved. Perhaps we have been speaking from two very distant aspects, I agree that culture should not forcibly be preserved through law just to keep a 'national heritage', in a way that is more so the result of nationalism then just culture... Progress should not be hindered by tradition.

Perhaps if I understand correctly we agree on this point, but like I said we might be arguing two different types of preservation.

Originally Posted by BEHIND THE MASK

But the cultural aspect was a major part of those ideas... the Greek way of thinking was apart of that cultural aspect that shaped the Roman Republic and later the Empire. Cultural Preservation is not trying to protect or keep it unchanged, in one definition perhaps but we speak of different definitions then... Surely preserving culture, through artifacts, texts, records, and ideas is what allows us to learn from past experiences and develop new ideas.

That's preserving history and documents or artifacts of historical significance, not "culture". Culture is "the set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterizes an institution, organization or group", which is completely different to preserve.

And again i'm arguing cultural preservation in my definition, cultural mixing blends aspects of cultures but to an extent preserves and maintains different aspects of each respectfully... Culture always changes but it remains in roots to the developers of that culture; superstitions and myths remain even today amongst some cultures that were there many, many years ago... and to that extent the ideas are preserved.

Yes, but that is not the preservation of culture, because they're not being purposefully kept, they're simply residual, and the culture itself has changed, because culture is defined above.

I've never argued against the whole mixing pot thing or that culture is mutationg today... But what I'm saying is that preservation of traditional cultures needs to take place, not through practice, dont get me wrong, but through texts and records... But surely even then different ideas bred from the influences of other cultures, taking admirable aspects and applying them elsewhere, such a feature would not have occured if culture wasn't preserved to some point... Whether the aspect to arcitecture, art or even food.

That is not preserving culture, because as I explained, culture is the entire system, not individual aspects thereof.

Its not just Putin, though it can easily be assosiated with just him, the Russian constitution grants more power to the president then the American one.

Though it may still have been to early in modern Russian democracy to argue this point.

The President of Russia carries essentially the same role as the Presidents of other European countries. Russia has a President and a Prime Minister, which countries like France have (Germany has a Prime Minister and Chancellor I think, which is essentially the same thing but different vocab). It's nothing to do with Russian history.

You have explained... I have explained... You've disagreed... I've disagreed... And so the vicious circle plays out once more.

The point is we are actually developing our arguments rather than just "yes it is" "no it isn't". This process helps us to actually consolidate our arguments in light of criticism. If you didn't want your views criticised, you shouldn't have posted them in a part of the board where that is the key point.

Preservation, as I've explained is needed so that the populance has reserves of knowledge through text or learning to which they can look back on, read over, form new ideas, and put those ideas into practice. Do you argue that no apsects of old Persia remained? That overnight they all turned Greek, the cultures mixed, yes but Persian aspects remained. I've said culture evolves, changes, but preservation is not as dogmatic as you believe... I dont believe in preservation, as in what Quebec , but through archieves, records and historical value! There should be no need to pass laws to really preserve culture...

We're not disagreeing as to the meaning of "preservation", we're disagreeing as to the meaning of "culture". You're using the word "culture" wrongly and this is why you misunderstand the argument against you - we're not saying we should destroy historical arguments, we're saying that culture as "the set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterizes an institution, organization or group" has no logical reason for being preserved as a system, simply aspects thereof insofar as they are beneficial. Preserving culture as defined above is nothing more than fearing the future.

Perhaps were finally getting somehwere... but I'm just trying to say that preservation does not mean the stop of this evolution, alot of good did come from culture but, and alot of bad can... But just because culture has the capacity for bad does not mean it shouldn't be remembered or preserved. Perhaps we have been speaking from two very distant aspects, I agree that culture should not forcibly be preserved through law just to keep a 'national heritage', in a way that is more so the result of nationalism then just culture... Progress should not be hindered by tradition.

But that's exactly what cultural preservation is - standing in the way of a change of culture because of pride in tradition, which has no logical basis.

Perhaps if I understand correctly we agree on this point, but like I said we might be arguing two different types of preservation.

We're not disagreeing on preservation, it's just that you're misunderstanding what exactly "culture" is in your argument.

Originally Posted by The Arbitrator

That's preserving history and documents or artifacts of historical significance, not "culture". Culture is "the set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterizes an institution, organization or group", which is completely different to preserve..

Those artificats, those documents are as much a part of the culture as the practice itself; mummies are a part of Egyptian culture for example, and like many artifacts are displayed in museums and such.

Yes, but that is not the preservation of culture, because they're not being purposefully kept, they're simply residual, and the culture itself has changed, because culture is defined above.

It is preserved because its not being cast away to destruction but kept to be remember, that is preservation... perhaps not the definition your using or wish to accept in this arguement.

That is not preserving culture, because as I explained, culture is the entire system, not individual aspects thereof.

Culture is imbedded in tradition just as much as the system; cultures have had different aspects but they still come to be known as one culture; Greek and Roman gods were different but it is considered by many a common mythology. Culture is not just one grand big thing but holds place in small, miniscular things as well.

The President of Russia carries essentially the same role as the Presidents of other European countries. Russia has a President and a Prime Minister, which countries like France have (Germany has a Prime Minister and Chancellor I think, which is essentially the same thing but different vocab). It's nothing to do with Russian history.

But Russian history and culture does have an influence on the Russian Presidency... Just like the development of the English/British history and culture, through the Magna Carta, actually influenced the colonists wish for representation.

The point is we are actually developing our arguments rather than just "yes it is" "no it isn't". This process helps us to actually consolidate our arguments in light of criticism. If you didn't want your views criticised, you shouldn't have posted them in a part of the board where that is the key point.

I do want my views criticised. Yet when I criticise yours you seem to have quite the similar reaction as I do to yours... I like seeing different perceptions but on this case neither side seems to be getting much through in terms of pushing their own thoughts and beliefs on the matter.

We're not disagreeing as to the meaning of "preservation", we're disagreeing as to the meaning of "culture". You're using the word "culture" wrongly and this is why you misunderstand the argument against you - we're not saying we should destroy historical arguments, we're saying that culture as "the set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterizes an institution, organization or group" has no logical reason for being preserved as a system, simply aspects thereof insofar as they are beneficial. Preserving culture as defined above is nothing more than fearing the future.

You tell me I'm using the word culture wrongly... Dear god I must be wrong, I do not subjugate myself to your views and way of seeing something!

Yet meanwhile, you misunderstand my use of the word 'culture' and cannot understand the arguement against... I argue that culture goes beyond just shared attitudes, values, goals and practices and in questioning the subject of culture the substance value must be considered, what can be touched and seen and cherished, things that inspire.

Preserving culture as defined above is nothing more then remembering the past and cherishing old ideas so we make look back on them for inspiration.

The subject changes but the arguement stays the same it seems... Culture is such a broad subject yet neither you or I seem to have a single solid, definite way of describing it so that we can properly argue it.

But that's exactly what cultural preservation is - standing in the way of a change of culture because of pride in tradition, which has no logical basis.

Why should we not be prideful of tradition, the ways our parents and ancestors flourished in the world before us? About the great things they built, ideas formed, buisnesses risen from ruin! Looking back on such things can allow us to move forward with our own ideals and goals inspired by past achievement.

Culture is a muse that inspires us to draw and write, read and cherish! Not to say we wouldn't do those things without but it is from the rememberance of culture that we may be inspired; and if not more power to you.

We're not disagreeing on preservation, it's just that you're misunderstanding what exactly "culture" is in your argument

Again, I 'misunderstand' culture...

"UH HUH, I'M RIGHT"

"NA-UH, I'M RIGHT"

Neither of us seem to credit the others understanding of culture, and so it seems the we come to a stand still once more.

Now, I wont say for sure, but I can guess you will once more tell me I'm misunderstanding 'Culture' and so my arguement is at a fault.

Then I will tell you I just do not consider it in the same way as yours and that my own definition is just as valid, and the whole thing will repeat...

Originally Posted by BEHIND THE MASK

Those artificats, those documents are as much a part of the culture as the practice itself; mummies are a part of Egyptian culture for example, and like many artifacts are displayed in museums and such.

Yes they are PART of culture, but they are not themselves culture, because culture is the set of practices blah blah blah. Culture is the system as a whole, cultural preservation is an attempt to keep that system going.

It is preserved because its not being cast away to destruction but kept to be remember, that is preservation... perhaps not the definition your using or wish to accept in this arguement.

I'm not saying that's not what preservation is, I'm saying that's not what preservation of culture is.

Culture is imbedded in tradition just as much as the system; cultures have had different aspects but they still come to be known as one culture; Greek and Roman gods were different but it is considered by many a common mythology. Culture is not just one grand big thing but holds place in small, miniscular things as well.

Culture is the set of shared beliefs or ideals etc of a particular people. They come to be known as one culture because they are one culture, just incorporating aspects of previous cultures. This is why saying you want to preserve a particular culture is silly, because every culture is made up of multiple cultures one way or another. There is no one pure culture, which is why attempting to preserve one particular way of life is silly.

Also Greek and Roman Gods were basically the same, just with different names.

But Russian history and culture does have an influence on the Russian Presidency... Just like the development of the English/British history and culture, through the Magna Carta, actually influenced the colonists wish for representation.

That's giving Magna Carta an anachronistic value however, a "whiggish" interpretation of history. Magna Carta wasn't about handing value to the Rule of Law or anything, it was just because the Lords wanted to stop the King from being able to do whatever he liked in relation to them, which eventually evolved over the years into a respect for the Rule of Law. Russian history obviously has an influence on the new democracy because of the simple fact that they were not democratic before, but the Presidency does not incorporate any aspects of the Tsars from before apart from the fact that they are in charge.

I do want my views criticised. Yet when I criticise yours you seem to have quite the similar reaction as I do to yours... I like seeing different perceptions but on this case neither side seems to be getting much through in terms of pushing their own thoughts and beliefs on the matter.

They are, because I'm coming to understand exactly why you're not agreeing with me, and so I'm trying to find a way to explain it to you better.

You tell me I'm using the word culture wrongly... Dear god I must be wrong, I do not subjugate myself to your views and way of seeing something!

Yet meanwhile, you misunderstand my use of the word 'culture' and cannot understand the arguement against... I argue that culture goes beyond just shared attitudes, values, goals and practices and in questioning the subject of culture the substance value must be considered, what can be touched and seen and cherished, things that inspire.

Preserving culture as defined above is nothing more then remembering the past and cherishing old ideas so we make look back on them for inspiration.

The subject changes but the arguement stays the same it seems... Culture is such a broad subject yet neither you or I seem to have a single solid, definite way of describing it so that we can properly argue it.

Yes we do, because I've given you the definition, direct from wikipedia, which you seem to have ignored. The entire point of words is that they have a common definition, ergo if you're not using the word in the same way in this context as we are, you're basically using it wrongly.

"* excellence of taste in the fine arts and humanities, also known as high culture
* an integrated pattern of human knowledge, belief, and behavior that depends upon the capacity for symbolic thought and social learning
* the set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterizes an institution, organization or group."

Here, the entire issue of cultural preservation relates to the third definition, because it doesn't relate to the first or second in any real way. So in this discussion, culture means the third, and you haven't been using the first or second either. Any other definition is basically wrong. This is fact, much like you wouldn't try to argue that two plus two actually equals five.

Why should we not be prideful of tradition, the ways our parents and ancestors flourished in the world before us? About the great things they built, ideas formed, buisnesses risen from ruin! Looking back on such things can allow us to move forward with our own ideals and goals inspired by past achievement.

Culture is a muse that inspires us to draw and write, read and cherish! Not to say we wouldn't do those things without but it is from the rememberance of culture that we may be inspired; and if not more power to you.

We shouldn't be "proud" of tradition because we have no part in it. Being proud of things that happened a long time ago, which we didn't do, is silly. You cannot be proud of something which you did not do, which is why being proud of things that have nothing to do with your thoughts or actions is silly. You can respect them but even then, why be proud of things just because we've done it for so long? That's all tradition is - something that has been done for so long, that people have come to think it must be done. It's a trend, nothing more.

National pride, very related to pride in tradition, is basically being proud of being lucky enough to be born on a particular patch of land where people who died a long time ago did something cool. You may have done absolutely nothing, yet you are still "proud" of it. How is that possible? It's not, yet people still parade around saying they're "proud" to be British. It is not an achievement, it is simply a matter of fact, you can neither be proud of ashamed of it.

Again, I 'misunderstand' culture...

"UH HUH, I'M RIGHT"

"NA-UH, I'M RIGHT"

Neither of us seem to credit the others understanding of culture, and so it seems the we come to a stand still once more.

Now, I wont say for sure, but I can guess you will once more tell me I'm misunderstanding 'Culture' and so my arguement is at a fault.

Then I will tell you I just do not consider it in the same way as yours and that my own definition is just as valid, and the whole thing will repeat...

Your definition is only valid if I get to define "man" as "an entity carrying a vagina and breasts", and "woman" as "an entity carrying a penis". That is, your definition of culture is wrong. The only way this is going to turn into "Na-uh, I'm right" is if you insist you're right despite the fact that culture is defined as I have defined it. Look it up, and if you insist that you're still right, then the problem is on your end, and the only person turning this into a circular argument is you.

Originally Posted by The Arbitrator

Yes they are PART of culture, but they are not themselves culture, because culture is the set of practices blah blah blah. Culture is the system as a whole, cultural preservation is an attempt to keep that system going..

And Walls and Ceilings and Floors are a PART of a house but they are not themselves a house... what an absolute crap point on eithere side.

And why predition, as predicted, has pretty much come true as my definition is once more disregarded for your 'right' definition. Bah.

I'm not saying that's not what preservation is, I'm saying that's not what preservation of culture is.

I'm saying that is what preservation of culture is. We're both hitting the same nail, its just one of us hits it on the head, the other on the point and yet we seem oblivious to which is hitting which.

Culture is the set of shared beliefs or ideals etc of a particular people. They come to be known as one culture because they are one culture, just incorporating aspects of previous cultures. This is why saying you want to preserve a particular culture is silly, because every culture is made up of multiple cultures one way or another. There is no one pure culture, which is why attempting to preserve one particular way of life is silly.

Culture is the binding traditions, mixed with religion and superstition, it is also a process attaining to arcitecture and art, construction and organization, and is unique to other people.

This is way saying you dont want to preserve any particular culture is silly; you will lose that uniqueness and it will fade never to be remembered as it is left to be forgotten and lain to waste and rubble. What could have been a fascinating artifate is now an odd rock...

There is no one pure culture, there are many inspiring differences, different ways and processes of doing things which we can look upon, not preserving them would be folly and silly.

Also Greek and Roman Gods were basically the same, just with different names.

True that, but still the names and small changes show their was a (small) evolution as it passed from Greeks to Romans. The change of names itself showing its adaptation to its new people.

That's giving Magna Carta an anachronistic value however, a "whiggish" interpretation of history. Magna Carta wasn't about handing value to the Rule of Law or anything, it was just because the Lords wanted to stop the King from being able to do whatever he liked in relation to them, which eventually evolved over the years into a respect for the Rule of Law. Russian history obviously has an influence on the new democracy because of the simple fact that they were not democratic before, but the Presidency does not incorporate any aspects of the Tsars from before apart from the fact that they are in charge.

The Magna Carta still had an effect on the British persona, some would say its why Britain/England became a Constitutional Monarchy then an Absolute, like its neigbor over the pond France.

Russian History has had its influences on the process of Russian Democracy. Much like some would argue the roles of Soviet rulers much the same as that of a Tsar in means of absolute control... In the democracy this absolute quality still remains but not to such a degree.

They are, because I'm coming to understand exactly why you're not agreeing with me, and so I'm trying to find a way to explain it to you better.

I can understand that, and I do apologize if I'm beginning to sound somewhat sarcastic (I sorta do so during prolonged arguements, though it doesn't help we seem to visit the same points over and over)

I also want to explain my view somewhat better, but I dont think we can agree completly on any one thing in this subject. Still nice to converse on such topics though... either side can learn a good bit.

Yes we do, because I've given you the definition, direct from wikipedia, which you seem to have ignored. The entire point of words is that they have a common definition, ergo if you're not using the word in the same way in this context as we are, you're basically using it wrongly.

"* excellence of taste in the fine arts and humanities, also known as high culture
* an integrated pattern of human knowledge, belief, and behavior that depends upon the capacity for symbolic thought and social learning
* the set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterizes an institution, organization or group."

Here, the entire issue of cultural preservation relates to the third definition, because it doesn't relate to the first or second in any real way. So in this discussion, culture means the third, and you haven't been using the first or second either. Any other definition is basically wrong. This is fact, much like you wouldn't try to argue that two plus two actually equals five.

I can still argue this part, the topic in general is about Culture and to fully argue the subject all definitions should be accounted for.

Either 1 or 2 can apply... Whether it be the preservation of Fine Arts or Symbolic Thought in some regards. I have been using a definition closer to the first, in regards to art, which encompasses many subjects rather it be paint, arcitecture, literation or the such, I find the definition applies.

We shouldn't be "proud" of tradition because we have no part in it. Being proud of things that happened a long time ago, which we didn't do, is silly. You cannot be proud of something which you did not do, which is why being proud of things that have nothing to do with your thoughts or actions is silly. You can respect them but even then, why be proud of things just because we've done it for so long? That's all tradition is - something that has been done for so long, that people have come to think it must be done. It's a trend, nothing more.

We shouldnt be proud because it happened a long time ago... We should be proud because it stood for something great, monumental in our development and the development of our past.

We may not have done it but our ancestors had a hand in it, which inspires us to have a hand in our society today... what happened happened, why shouldn't we remember it? Why should we care how our great cities developed as they did, why that statue stands in the park or anything? Is it truly so folly to reflect on the past and think of the great things that took place.

Pride of a people and Pride of an individual can be rather different, but the only time that such is harmful is when it depends on the mindset of human thinking, especially nationalism.

National pride, very related to pride in tradition, is basically being proud of being lucky enough to be born on a particular patch of land where people who died a long time ago did something cool. You may have done absolutely nothing, yet you are still "proud" of it. How is that possible? It's not, yet people still parade around saying they're "proud" to be British. It is not an achievement, it is simply a matter of fact, you can neither be proud of ashamed of it.

People should not be proud of being born on a patch of land, but rather how they grew up and the impact that the culture (good or bad) had upon them... Its not just they did something cool its because they did something that made us so we are here today; an honorable feeling if you ask me.

But really no one should be proud just because they are 'british' but they should be proud if they actually thrive for what they believe in... Words without action are meaningless, but they should not mean we should reject all pride.

Your definition is only valid if I get to define "man" as "an entity carrying a vagina and breasts", and "woman" as "an entity carrying a penis". That is, your definition of culture is wrong. The only way this is going to turn into "Na-uh, I'm right" is if you insist you're right despite the fact that culture is defined as I have defined it. Look it up, and if you insist that you're still right, then the problem is on your end, and the only person turning this into a circular argument is you

My definition is as valid as yours and once again you make a grossly incompatable example... I could argue your definiton but really I prefer not to connect a discussion on culture to the placements of genitalia.

Originally Posted by BEHIND THE MASK

And Walls and Ceilings and Floors are a PART of a house but they are not themselves a house... what an absolute crap point on eithere side.

And why predition, as predicted, has pretty much come true as my definition is once more disregarded for your 'right' definition. Bah.

Well yes, because my definition is relevant to this discussion, whereas yours isn't so much.

It's not a crap point either way, a "culture" is a whole system, just as a "house" is a set of walls plus a ceiling plus a floor plus decorum. If I just preserve a window, that's not preserving the house, just like preserving historical texts is not preserving culture.

I'm saying that is what preservation of culture is. We're both hitting the same nail, its just one of us hits it on the head, the other on the point and yet we seem oblivious to which is hitting which.

But that isn't what preservation of culture is, unless preserving a window is indeed preserving a house. Preserving a part is not the same as preserving a whole.

Culture is the binding traditions, mixed with religion and superstition, it is also a process attaining to arcitecture and art, construction and organization, and is unique to other people.

This is way saying you dont want to preserve any particular culture is silly; you will lose that uniqueness and it will fade never to be remembered as it is left to be forgotten and lain to waste and rubble. What could have been a fascinating artifate is now an odd rock...

There is no one pure culture, there are many inspiring differences, different ways and processes of doing things which we can look upon, not preserving them would be folly and silly.

There is no reason to preserve uniqueness if there is no benefit to it. That's the point, it doesn't matter if a particular culture is fascinating, it may have historical significance to document their practices, but to actually continue their practices when such practices have no benefit is what is folly.

True that, but still the names and small changes show their was a (small) evolution as it passed from Greeks to Romans. The change of names itself showing its adaptation to its new people.

And therefore its failure to be preserved.

The Magna Carta still had an effect on the British persona, some would say its why Britain/England became a Constitutional Monarchy then an Absolute, like its neigbor over the pond France.

Actually that would be because of the Bill of Rights that was past in the 18th century in the so called "Glorious Revolution" which admittedly incorporated ideas from the Magna Carta, but again you're attributing a value to it which it did not have at its time. It wasn't a triumph against oppression, because the people who forced the King of the time to sign it weren't being "oppressed", they just thought the King was being a dick because he had absolute power and decided they didn't like it.

Russian History has had its influences on the process of Russian Democracy. Much like some would argue the roles of Soviet rulers much the same as that of a Tsar in means of absolute control... In the democracy this absolute quality still remains but not to such a degree.

But that isn't because of the historical signifance of Tsars, that's because this is how Presidents and Prime Ministers work in many democracies, and because Putin wants absolute power. Putin isn't saying "Hmm, Tsars had historical significance, so I should make my position resemble theirs!", Putin is saying "I want power". The Tsars also wanted power. That's pretty much all they had in common.

I can understand that, and I do apologize if I'm beginning to sound somewhat sarcastic (I sorta do so during prolonged arguements, though it doesn't help we seem to visit the same points over and over)

I also want to explain my view somewhat better, but I dont think we can agree completly on any one thing in this subject. Still nice to converse on such topics though... either side can learn a good bit.

I can still argue this part, the topic in general is about Culture and to fully argue the subject all definitions should be accounted for.

Either 1 or 2 can apply... Whether it be the preservation of Fine Arts or Symbolic Thought in some regards. I have been using a definition closer to the first, in regards to art, which encompasses many subjects rather it be paint, arcitecture, literation or the such, I find the definition applies.

That would explain why you've been disagreeing with me then, but "culture" as everyone else in this discussion understands it is the third meaning. Islamic culture, British culture, French culture as in Quebec, resemble the third meaning. Andross in his opening post was talking about the third and possibly second meaning. If you want to discuss the first meaning, perhaps a different topic should be opened to talk about the fine arts (because I have many views on that too).

We shouldnt be proud because it happened a long time ago... We should be proud because it stood for something great, monumental in our development and the development of our past.

We may not have done it but our ancestors had a hand in it, which inspires us to have a hand in our society today... what happened happened, why shouldn't we remember it? Why should we care how our great cities developed as they did, why that statue stands in the park or anything? Is it truly so folly to reflect on the past and think of the great things that took place.

Pride of a people and Pride of an individual can be rather different, but the only time that such is harmful is when it depends on the mindset of human thinking, especially nationalism.

It's not about whether or not it's harmful, it's whether or not it's at all logical for one person to be proud of the actions of another. Just because it stood for something great doesn't mean we can be "proud" of it. We can respect it, we can idealise it, we can worship it maybe, but we can't be "proud" of it.

People should not be proud of being born on a patch of land, but rather how they grew up and the impact that the culture (good or bad) had upon them... Its not just they did something cool its because they did something that made us so we are here today; an honorable feeling if you ask me.

But really no one should be proud just because they are 'british' but they should be proud if they actually thrive for what they believe in... Words without action are meaningless, but they should not mean we should reject all pride.

Pride can only really exist if it was an individual's actions. I can be proud that I have achieved a goal, I can't be proud if my horse wins in a race.

My definition is as valid as yours and once again you make a grossly incompatable example... I could argue your definiton but really I prefer not to connect a discussion on culture to the placements of genitalia.

Again you seem to be arguing that every word can have a different definition, but if that were true there'd be no point in having a discussion because everything we'd be saying could be completely misunderstood. Even the words I'm using here could have different definitions and so we could be having two different conversations as far as I know. The point is, your definition of culture may be relevant to an entirely different discussion, but it was not the definition Andross had in mind when starting this thread.

National pride, very related to pride in tradition, is basically being proud of being lucky enough to be born on a particular patch of land where people who died a long time ago did something cool. You may have done absolutely nothing, yet you are still "proud" of it. How is that possible? It's not, yet people still parade around saying they're "proud" to be British. It is not an achievement, it is simply a matter of fact, you can neither be proud of ashamed of it.

It isn't about being pound about where you live, one would consider themselves fortunate rather than proud to live in a certain place depending on where it is. However, one can be proud of their nation for past accomplishments for example, I am grateful to the founding fathers and revolutionaries for creating a free nation with strong principles. I would be likely if I were educated in history to the same degree, but lived in a different country, I would respect America, it's founding and what it stands for.

It isn't about being born somewhere, it's about standing for what the greats of that country stood for. As long as you do that you can be proud of yourself.

Also, it seems to me that Arbitrator is speaking of culture as the whole culture, which is likely outdated and Behind the Mask is speaking of culture as the beneficial ideas that we look back on to remember and learn from. Thats just me though.

For the sake of those actually following this discussion I wil lavoid the usual long drawn out word wall and rather sum it up to the following points:

Well yes, because my definition is relevant to this discussion, whereas yours isn't so much.

It's not a crap point either way, a "culture" is a whole system, just as a "house" is a set of walls plus a ceiling plus a floor plus decorum. If I just preserve a window, that's not preserving the house, just like preserving historical texts is not preserving culture.

My definition is valid, for it does encompass all aspects of Culture, it my points are just a window, then yours are just an opposite window because your points do not encompass all, just as you insinuate of mine.

But that isn't what preservation of culture is, unless preserving a window is indeed preserving a house. Preserving a part is not the same as preserving a whole.

Preserving a parts can preserve a whole; a single document and stone can reveal much more then one may believe; we may never understood ancient Egyptian if that frenchman never found, and actually used and preserved the Rosetta stone... It just depends I suppose on how one sees it.

[There is no reason to preserve uniqueness if there is no benefit to it. That's the point, it doesn't matter if a particular culture is fascinating, it may have historical significance to document their practices, but to actually continue their practices when such practices have no benefit is what is folly.

There is a benefit to preserving uniqueness. It offers a creativity alien to our own that sparks inspiration and allows human thought to further develop.

And therefore its failure to be preserved.

The idea of the mythology was preserved but it was the evolution itself that came about... It did not get rid of Greek Mythology, we still have accounts for that and it was preserved, but the evolution to the Romans allowed the Romans to grasp and understand it as it made a transition intio their culture.

Actually that would be because of the Bill of Rights that was past in the 18th century in the so called "Glorious Revolution" which admittedly incorporated ideas from the Magna Carta, but again you're attributing a value to it which it did not have at its time. It wasn't a triumph against oppression, because the people who forced the King of the time to sign it weren't being "oppressed", they just thought the King was being a dick because he had absolute power and decided they didn't like it.

The Magna Carta still had its role; thats like critising the Declaration of Independance for saying all men are creating equal "except for those funny colored people with the shackles on..." indeed thats crap, yet people still hold that document in high regard.

(If the above comes off as offensive, I just feel I should clarify that while I do respect the US, in its founding and further beyond... on this regard I do grow aggitated at the hypocrisy but beyond that, I could have came up with a better way of saying it... )

But that isn't because of the historical signifance of Tsars, that's because this is how Presidents and Prime Ministers work in many democracies, and because Putin wants absolute power. Putin isn't saying "Hmm, Tsars had historical significance, so I should make my position resemble theirs!", Putin is saying "I want power". The Tsars also wanted power. That's pretty much all they had in common.

Its not because of the significance of the Tsars but because the significance of Russian History and process of absolute rule under a single leader, like the Russian Tsars or Soviet Chairmen.

That would explain why you've been disagreeing with me then, but "culture" as everyone else in this discussion understands it is the third meaning. Islamic culture, British culture, French culture as in Quebec, resemble the third meaning. Andross in his opening post was talking about the third and possibly second meaning. If you want to discuss the first meaning, perhaps a different topic should be opened to talk about the fine arts (because I have many views on that too).

Theres an everyone else in this discussion? I know some people have commented onto our little exchange but really no one else has really gotten involved as much as you are I, and furthermore I find it somewhat unfair that you speak for them... the OP may have referred to the 2nd or 3rd more so then the 1st but that doesn't mean it can be displaced, its role in the development of the other two is a major part.

It's not about whether or not it's harmful, it's whether or not it's at all logical for one person to be proud of the actions of another. Just because it stood for something great doesn't mean we can be "proud" of it. We can respect it, we can idealise it, we can worship it maybe, but we can't be "proud" of it.

It might not be logical for you, but for others it may make sense and provide reason... This subject goes beyond your mindset and the diversity of human thinking needs to be considered.

Pride can only really exist if it was an individual's actions. I can be proud that I have achieved a goal, I can't be proud if my horse wins in a race.

You can be proud if you raised the horse, fed it, kept it healthy, kept it in shape, and went through all that with your horse to achieve your goal... then that mutual pride is justified.

Again you seem to be arguing that every word can have a different definition, but if that were true there'd be no point in having a discussion because everything we'd be saying could be completely misunderstood. Even the words I'm using here could have different definitions and so we could be having two different conversations as far as I know. The point is, your definition of culture may be relevant to an entirely different discussion, but it was not the definition Andross had in mind when starting this thread.

My definition is valid on the subject because it does pertain to Culture, especially when, as I said, my definition is instrumental in the development of the others parts of culture.

At this point I apologize, once more it seems I've word walled... The page is growing a bit intimidating, hard to keep up with it all..

I would have used qoutes but I had intended to keep it brief... I'll edit them in momentarilly.

Originally Posted by BEHIND THE MASK

My definition is valid, for it does encompass all aspects of Culture, it my points are just a window, then yours are just an opposite window because your points do not encompass all, just as you insinuate of mine.

But your points don't encompass the preservation of culture as a whole, only preservation of parts because of their relevance to the whole.

Preserving a parts can preserve a whole; a single document and stone can reveal much more then one may believe; we may never understood ancient Egyptian if that frenchman never found, and actually used and preserved the Rosetta stone... It just depends I suppose on how one sees it.

It hasn't preserved the culture itself, because we're not following the practicies and ideologies of ancient Egypt. It has preserved the knowledge of those practices, which is different entirely.

There is a benefit to preserving uniqueness. It offers a creativity alien to our own that sparks inspiration and allows human thought to further develop.

Preserving uniqueness simply ensures that nothing will be like it. Preserving knowledge is obviously beneficial, but this isn't the same as preserving uniqueness or culture.

The idea of the mythology was preserved but it was the evolution itself that came about... It did not get rid of Greek Mythology, we still have accounts for that and it was preserved, but the evolution to the Romans allowed the Romans to grasp and understand it as it made a transition intio their culture.

But the cultures themselves no longer exist. We know about them, but the cultures themselves have died out. If we had preserved them, they would not have died out, and we'd still be living in those times.

The Magna Carta still had its role; thats like critising the Declaration of Independance for saying all men are creating equal "except for those funny colored people with the shackles on..." indeed thats crap, yet people still hold that document in high regard.

(If the above comes off as offensive, I just feel I should clarify that while I do respect the US, in its founding and further beyond... on this regard I do grow aggitated at the hypocrisy but beyond that, I could have came up with a better way of saying it... )

It had its role, but you can't assign values that only came to fruition later on to such a document. The "Rule of Law" as we know it today mostly came about as a result of works of people such as Arthur Dicey in the 19th century, so we can't say that the Magna Carta is a prime example of how people respected the Rule of Law, because that's not why it came into being at all.

Its not because of the significance of the Tsars but because the significance of Russian History and process of absolute rule under a single leader, like the Russian Tsars or Soviet Chairmen.

But the Russian President is not an absolute leader, however much he may want to be, precisely because people don't want a repeat of Soviet Dictatorship. It's not about cultural preservation, because that culture of absolute dictatorship has not been preserved - it has been observed, noted, and rejected.

Theres an everyone else in this discussion? I know some people have commented onto our little exchange but really no one else has really gotten involved as much as you are I, and furthermore I find it somewhat unfair that you speak for them... the OP may have referred to the 2nd or 3rd more so then the 1st but that doesn't mean it can be displaced, its role in the development of the other two is a major part.

But it has a different meaning - the first refers to "culture" in the sense of opera and art, the third refers to "culture" in the sense of British, French, Islamic, American cultures, and so on. The first is nothing to do with shared goals or beliefs or ideologies of a particular people.

It might not be logical for you, but for others it may make sense and provide reason... This subject goes beyond your mindset and the diversity of human thinking needs to be considered.

Logic is logic, 2 + 2 = 4, logically speaking. Pride is a sense of self-worth, which means that having self-worth in light of the actions of others makes no sense whatsoever. It may make sense in the warped minds of patriots and nationalists, but that doesn't mean it makes sense to anyone with half a brain cell.

You can be proud if you raised the horse, fed it, kept it healthy, kept it in shape, and went through all that with your horse to achieve your goal... then that mutual pride is justified.

What I meant was, if I place a bet on a horse in a race, I can't be proud of that. That was pure chance, as was the fact that I was born in Britain, as was the fact that I was born white, as was the fact that I was born in a family that isn't struggling financially. I can't be proud of these things, as they do not give me a reason to have self-worth.

My definition is valid on the subject because it does pertain to Culture, especially when, as I said, my definition is instrumental in the development of the others parts of culture.

At this point I apologize, once more it seems I've word walled... The page is growing a bit intimidating, hard to keep up with it all..

I would have used qoutes but I had intended to keep it brief... I'll edit them in momentarilly.

Opera and art aren't "instrumental" to culture, because a culture could exist without them. They may be instrumental to a particular culture, but they are not instrumental to the concept of culture.