#the opposite of knowledge is anti intellectualism

[metamatar]

honestly surprised to see you sharing stuff about indigenous spiritual knowledge

im now an immigrant to turtle island, so i think its natural to be curious about the intellectual landscape of the peoples that live here! im still an anti theist who doesn't make a distinction between religion and spirituality tbc, but i like studying philosophy and science and those are tied up in religion and our spiritual life and always have been. its all meaning making of the world? if i was studying science in the middle ages i'd have to also be understanding islam. so much mathematical and astronomical development happened simply to figure out in which direction to pray. and with it comes critiques of religious orthodoxy too.

from the great polymath alberuni's study of india and its science you'll find rebukes to brahmagupta for being a mathematician who doesn't have the moral courage to dispute the theology about the eclipse.

Alberuni quotes Brahmagupta's criticism of Aryabhata and his followers, in defence of the orthodox religious theory [...]

"Some people think that the eclipse is not caused by [a shadown planet and deity, Rahu's] Head. This, however, is a foolish idea, for it is he in fact who eclipses, and the generality of the inhabitants of the world say that it is the Head that eclipses. The Veda, which is the word of God from the mouth of Brahman, says that the Head eclipses. ...On the contrary. Varahamihira, Shrishena, Aryabhata and Vishnuchandra maintain that the eclipse is not caused by the Head, but by the moon and the shadow of the earth, in direct opposition to all (to the generality of men), and from the enmity against the just-mentioned dogma."

Alberuni, who is quite excited about Aryabhata's scientific theories of eclipses, then accuses Brahmagupta (a great mathematician himself) for lacking the moral courage of Aryabhata in dissenting from the established orthodoxy. He points out that, in practice, Brahmagupta too follows Aryabhata's methods in predicting the eclipses, but this does not prevent Brahmagupta from sharply criticising - from an essentially theological perspective - Aryabhata and his followers for being heretical and heterodox.

SEN, AMARTYA. “INAUGURAL ADDRESS: HISTORY AND THE ENTERPRISE OF KNOWLEDGE.” Proceedings of the Indian History Congress 61 (2000): 1–13. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44148076.

so my attitude to indigenous spirituality is on the same continuum! im very early in my study so ofc im yet to discover what constitutes heterodoxy in say, anishinaabe spiritual life or if the material conditions of genocidal violence preclude it.

[communistkenobi]

I’ve been re-listening to the Alex Jones depositions, as well as coverage of Jones generally, from the Knowledge Fight podcast, and in one of their episodes where they’re covering Jones’ evolving rhetoric about COVID-19, one of the hosts makes the argument that Jones was trying to downplay the virus but still keep people afraid of it, because if his audience was too scared they may be more inclined to follow public health guidelines, so Jones was pushing anti-vaxx and anti-public health sentiments in order to scare people just enough to buy his survival meal packs and colloidal silver toothpaste instead.

And I think this is a really good way to approach discussions of modern american fascism and reactionary thought - the perfect marriage between anti-intellectualism and the logic of capitalism. Every time you hear an absurd reactionary claim about covid, these are not claims about reality, they are advertisements for right wing wealth accumulation. Which is of course conducted with the long term goal of building right wing power and justifying the disenfranchisement and oppression of marginal populations, but these “problems” are framed in such a way as to encourage a consumerist solution. Their undergirding logic is capitalistic in nature - the idea that you can give your money to an authority in exchange for salvation, which comes in the form of a standardised unit of metal-infused toothpaste or vitamin pills.

This view also makes it much easier to understand why people were taking horse heart dewormer to treat covid - even if they were buying that shit in a local store and the people peddling it (like Jones) don’t directly financially benefit from it, the claim that you can individually purchase your way out of a global pandemic still benefits the right wing, because it’s the direct opposite of broad public health initiatives like free vaccinations and social distancing guidelines, which is viewed as a form of communism. Something I don’t actually disagree with (the logic of these public health programmes is basically socialist in nature, even if the government doing it is anti-communist) but this framing prevents people from ever accepting any kind of government social program, instead flocking to the right wing, who plaster promises of eternal life on their billboards

[eretzyisrael]

by Sabrina Soffer

In classes where I was often the only pro-Israel student, and sometimes the only Jew, I chose to write papers and deliver presentations about Israel and Jewish life. In my Frankfurt School course, my final project Israel on the Utopian Horizon analyzed the Israeli Protest Movement through philosophies of Theodor Adorno, Ernst Bloch, Martin Buber, and José Munoz. Aside from quenching my personal academic interests, the project demonstrated how Israel embodies the liberal Frankfurt School principles that my non/anti-Zionist peers admired.

Another project in my course “Power,” used Michel Foucault’s Discipline and Punish to describe how universities have become like “Intellectual Panopticons” that lead to “Self-Censorship.” The panopticon concept represents a prison-like mechanism where constant surveillance enforces social control. Using Jonanthan Haidt & Greg Lukianoff’s The Coddling of the American Mind and drawing from my personal experience, I argued for reimagining individualism as responsible citizenship — expressing disagreement respectfully and assertively, even if standing alone. Once again, I demonstrated how many of my peers were misusing and abusing Progressive ideals against those holding political differences.

Unsurprisingly, those words I had penned during my sophomore year would become a reality. Despite widespread opposition, I formed the GW Student Association Antisemitism Task Force in early 2023. Approaching adversarial audiences by altering my communication style to make statements appear uncontroversial — and flipping my opposition’s arguments against them — provided instrumental lessons in persuasion. I even invited members of SJP and Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), who pledged anti-normalization, on board; they could no longer delegitimize my initiative by tarnishing me on the basis of my Israeli, Jewish, and American identities.

I could not have achieved these goals on my own. Outreach is a key ingredient in the recipe to success. The advice from public intellectuals like Einat Wilf, legal powerhouses like the Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, and other Jewish organizations like AMCHA were instrumental to formulating my approach. GW Hillel placed QR codes around their building and sent emails to Jewish community members to make public comments at the Student Senate meeting where a vote on creating an antisemitism task force would take place. Over 30 students showed up, and public comments that night ran for nearly an hour. In the end, the task force passed unanimously.

While the task force was dismantled by the following year’s Student Association president, its work has continued. Since the October 7th terror attacks, my peers and I consistently meet with professors and administrators to understand university conduct policies; we have learned to convey our perspectives to administrators who tread to take action. We’ve examined state and Federal law pertaining to Title VI, boycotts, and more. We engage with policy makers on the state and Federal level. We organize and advertise GW and DC-wide events. Most importantly, we have learned to engage substantively with prevalent and opposing views, block out hate, and hold our heads high with robust Jewish spirit.

My story is much less about what I accomplished, but the knowledge, skills, and strong sense of character I gained. Understanding your rights and learning to articulate information to diverse audiences are as important in school as in relationships and the workplace.

[sphinx-myth]

CEN childhood emotional neglect.

What are emotional neglect examples? [tw abuse]

Here are 19 emotional neglect examples.

Dismissing a child’s feelings when they are upset or hurt.

Being detached, cold

Ignoring a child’s attempts to emotionally connect.

Lack of family closeness, emotional intimacy, or warmth.

Being hostile.

Saying harsh or hurtful things to a child

Making a child feel like an inconvenience or burden.

Lack of positive feedback, praise, encouragement, affection, or nurturing behaviors.

Constantly criticizing.

Not providing comfort or reassurance during times of stress.

Permitting a child’s maladaptive behavior, such as damaging properties during tantrums.

Not spending quality time with a child.

Ridiculing a child for normal emotional needs or vulnerability.

Lack of interest in a child’s life or activities.

Rejecting a child.

Showing dislike.

Exposing a child to domestic violence or abuse.

Not intervening or supporting a bullied child.

Neglecting a child’s need for affectionate physical touch, like hugs.

Here are 20 signs you were emotionally neglected as a child.

Low self-esteem

Self-criticism

Low self-worth

Depression

Anxiety

Feelings of shame

Difficulty regulating emotions

Sensitivity to criticism

Feelings of emptiness or loneliness

Difficulty discerning or expressing emotions

Emotional unavailability

Poor social skills

Struggle to connect with others

Difficulty trusting others

Isolation

Relationship challenges

Fear of abandonment or rejection

Impulsive behavior

Aggression

Substance abuse

What are the signs of emotional neglect in a child?

Aggression, such as disruptive behavior, oppositional behavior, and impulsivity

Withdrawal or passivity, some transition from passive to increasingly aggressive behavior

Anxious or avoidant behavior

Poor emotional knowledge and regulation

Difficulties interpreting emotional expressions in others

Negative self-esteem

Developmental delay due to neglect, such as language delay, failure to thrive, cognitive function development delay

Poor peer interaction and social skills

Insecure attachment, some transition from ambivalent to avoidant attachment

Dissociation

Child-related risk factors

Child-related risk factors are characteristics of children who are associated with a greater risk of neglect. The presence of these factors does not mean the neglected child is in any way responsible. The responses of neglectful parents to these factors determine whether the child is neglected or not.

Here are the 5 child-related risk factors.

Infant or younger children

Externalizing behavior

Poor social competence

Behavior disorders

Disability, including physical, intellectual, mental, multiple impairments, or complex medical needs

Parent-related risk factors

Here are 15 parent-related risk factors that increase the likelihood of a neglected childhood.

Younger parents, such as teenage parents

Difficulties in emotional regulation

Low self-esteem

Social isolation or anti-social behavior

Drug abuse

Alcohol addiction

Criminal activities

Depression

Somatic problems

Childhood abuse

Lack of parenting knowledge and skills

Gambling problems

Parental insensitivity

Unrealistic expectations of the child

Parent is emotionally unavailable due to preoccupation with personal needs

Family-related risk factors

Several studies have identified the following 6 family-related risk factors associated with family neglect.

Domestic violence

Single parent

Poor parent-child relationship or dysfunctional family dynamics

Parental perception of the child as problematic

Poverty

Poor socio-economic status

Environment-related risk factors

Researchers have found 5 living environment risk factors.

Poor community support

Inaccessible soci lsuport services

Alcohol availability and widespread consumption

Unstable environment

Cultural and social norms

Child institutionalized or placed in an orphanage

[lordzannis]

Rudolph "Butch" T. Ware III is an American historian and the Green Party's vice presidential nominee for the 2024 United States presidential election. Here are key points about him:

Academic Background:

Associate professor in the Department of History at the University of California, Santa Barbara

Previously taught at the University of Michigan and Northwestern University

Received his Ph.D. in history from the University of Pennsylvania in 2004

Research Focus:

Specializes in West African history, African-American history, and Islamic intellectual history

His work focuses on Islamic thought, anti-slavery movements in West Africa and the African Diaspora, and the intersection of race, religion, and revolutionary thought

Political Involvement:

Selected as Jill Stein's running mate for the Green Party's 2024 presidential campaign

Nomination announced on August 16, 2024, during an online livestreamed event

Personal Background:

Practicing Muslim

His selection alongside Stein (who is Jewish) has been noted for creating a diverse ticket

Academic Work:

Author of "The Walking Qur'an: Islamic Education, Embodied Knowledge, and History in West Africa," which has received positive reviews for its analysis of Islamic traditions in Africa

Political Stance:

Emphasizes addressing systemic injustice and building a sustainable, just, and peaceful world

Critical of the two-party political system in the United States

Criticism:

Some critics argue that his background is primarily academic, with limited direct involvement in social movements or political activism outside of academia

The selection of Ware as the Green Party's vice presidential nominee is seen as an attempt to create a historically diverse ticket, bringing together different religious and cultural backgrounds in opposition to current U.S. policies on issues like war, climate change, and economic inequality.

Citations: [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butch_Ware [2] https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2024/08/26/tgug-a26.html [3] https://www.amazon.com/Walking-Quran-Education-Knowledge-Civilization/dp/1469614316 [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jill_Stein [5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ziwTDDcaVI [6] https://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/bware/ [7] https://www.jillstein2024ballotaccess.com [8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jill_Stein_2024_presidential_campaign

Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) is an electoral system that allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference. Here's a comprehensive overview:

How Ranked Choice Voting Works

Voters rank candidates in order of preference (1st choice, 2nd choice, 3rd choice, etc.).

If a candidate receives over 50% of first-choice votes, they win outright.

If no candidate gets a majority, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated.

Votes for the eliminated candidate are redistributed to voters' next choices.

This process repeats until a candidate has a majority.

Advantages of RCV

Determines strongest overall support: Reveals the candidate with the most support across the entire electorate, not just a passionate base.

Encourages civil campaigning: Reduces negative campaigning as candidates aim for second-choice votes.

Reduces wasted votes: Voters can support their preferred candidate without fear of "wasting" their vote.

Eliminates need for runoffs: Saves time and money by avoiding separate runoff elections.

Current Implementation

Statewide: Alaska and Maine use RCV for various elections.

Cities: 53 cities and counties in the U.S. use RCV, including New York City, San Francisco, and Minneapolis.

Military/Overseas: Several states use RCV for military and overseas voters in federal runoff elections.

Criticisms and Responses

Complexity: While slightly more complex than single-choice voting, data shows voters adapt quickly and turnout isn't negatively affected.

Cost: Initial implementation costs can be offset by eliminating runoff elections.

Delayed results: While final tallies may take longer, this ensures accurate and comprehensive results.

Conclusion

Ranked Choice Voting is gaining traction as a method to improve representation and reduce political polarization. While it requires some adjustment, its benefits in determining majority support and encouraging civil campaigning make it an increasingly popular electoral reform.

Citations: [1] https://www.lwvme.org/RCVhelp [2] https://time.com/5718941/ranked-choice-voting/ [3] https://www.rankedvote.co/guides/understanding-ranked-choice-voting/pros-and-cons-of-rcv [4] https://www.csg.org/2023/03/21/ranked-choice-voting-what-where-why-why-not/ [5] https://www.acvote.org/voting/rcv [6] https://vote.arlingtonva.gov/Elections/Ranked-Choice-Voting [7] https://www.pbs.org/wnet/preserving-democracy/2023/12/18/ranked-choice-voting-coming-to-more-statewide-ballots-in-2024/ [8] https://www.rcvresources.org/where-is-rcv-used

[oxygenbefore1775]

Hi! For start congrats on the milestone 💞

So for the color analysis event that got me intrigued I'm picking Reiner ofc. And the color I'm picking for me would be light purple if that's good and wasn't submitted yet 🤧💜

thanks so much for the kind words Mai <3

Reiner Braun

It's certainly an interesting choice since purple on the opposite spectrum to yellow - Reiner's "official" color and also the color that I myself assigned him. So, suffice to say, this would be interesting to dive into.

One of the distinctive features of the color purple lies in its composition, being a fusion of two colors - red and blue. This symbolic blend mirrors Reiner's dichotomy as both a Paradis soldier and a Marleyan warrior. But unlike the harmonious combination represented by purple, Reiner has always grappled with the challenge of assigning himself to either of the roles bestowed upon him.

Purple is also symbolic of mystery and the unknown. While this aspect doesn't directly align with Reiner's overarching narrative, it does coincide with the period between seasons two and three when his motivations became pretty much a mystery, sparking discussions and speculation.

Purple, historically associated with power as it was originally worn by monarchs, reflects an interesting facet of Reiner's character. On one hand, it aligns with his influential role in the RBA group (being its leader), where his decisions catalyzed major plot events such as the Fall of Shiganshina and Clash of Titans. Yet, this symbolism takes on a painfully ironic undertone in Reiner's life. Not only was his entire existence dictated by those in power, but even his installment as the Armored Titan resulted not from his efforts but from the influence of another person.

With this said, it only goes downhill, as nearly all the purple symbolism serves to underscore the ironic tone of Reiner's character rather than aligning with any of his other traits.

Take, for example, the connotation of innovation associated with the color purple - it truly drives the point across (and is my favourite to talk about). Purple, commonly linked to knowledge (hence Hange's "official" color), can also symbolize innovation, a product of intellectual work. However, innovation is precisely what Reiner is not, as demonstrated by the vulnerabilities of his Armored Titan to recent inventions - such as Thunder Spears (again, Hange's creation) during the Return to Shiganshina and the new anti-Titan artillery at the battle of Fort Slava. Innovation is simply not a defining trait for Reiner in the context of the color purple - on the contrary, it contradicts his character.

Another facet of the color purple is its fantastical quality, fostering the imagination. But in Reiner's case, not only it is ironic but also tragic, considering his initial motivation of becoming a Marleyan Warrior. Erroneously hoping that gaining a Titan would improve his family situation, Reiner imagined a future where his father could live with them, reuniting the family. However, this dream shattered when his father rejected him, leaving Reiner disillusioned. Another dream that met a similar fate was his aspiration to become a great Warrior after successfully completing the mission on the Island and earning himself a hero status. Evidently, this ambition never materialized, reinforcing the theme of disillusionment in Reiner's story. In this sense, the color purple only amplifies the mockery of magical and fantastical elements it brings for Reiner's story.

But the suggested color for Reiner is light purple - meaning, it has white added to it. While the color white may not significantly contribute to the conversation about Reiner's character, one prominent meaning associated with this color is that of a new beginning and the ability to start over. White, often seen as a plain canvas for other colors, symbolizes a clean slate. Although not directly indicative of Reiner's personality, it does represent his narrative progression of perception - initially viewed as an older brother figure, then thrust into an antagonistic role, and ultimately reinstated in a positive light, earning the role of a character worth rooting for.

All in all, the symbolism of purple doesn't directly play into the nuances of Reiner's character. If anything, it downplays and mocks the elements that are indicative of Reiner which is also interesting to see. It may not be Reiner's color but it could well be its antithesis, considering that purple is the direct opposite of color yellow (the color I believe to be Reiner's "official") which is a delight to see.

[lesewut]

THE WORLD OF PARMENIDES – ESSAYS ON THE PRESOCRATIC ENLIGHTMENT by Karl Popper

On the traces of our thinking - Part One

„Bright in the night, with an alien light, Round the Earth she is drifting. Always she wishfully looks Out for the rays of the Sun.”

Philosopher of Science Sir Karl Raimond Popper admired the Presocratic philosophy throughout his lifetime. Popper considers the Presocratic speculations and cosmogony as the beginning of our history of science, especially with regards to epistemology and theoretical physics. It is believed that speculative philosophy began with the Ionians, including Thales of Miletus and his disciple Anaximander. They developed the method of critical approach or critical tradition: To approach an explanatory myth (critical revision of mythical poems such as Homer or Hesiod’s "Theogony") with critical eyes. Even today, the verification of a theory for its truthfulness is a special feature of science. However, one should not underestimate the importance of incorrect theories, which were able to justify the problem and refine the explanation in the first place through falsification, since they can lead to a finer awareness of the problem again through the refutation. With this following book, Popper wants to contribute to a better understanding of the Presocratic. In addition, he wants to illustrate with his explanations the thesis that "history is- or should always be, the history that serves to solve the problem (...)." Popper discusses the basic ideas of the early Greek philosophers and shows the development of a critical methodology with the legacy of the search for truth, illustrated in particular by the didactic poem by Parmenides and the parable of the two paths.

The importance of Presocratic ideas in today's science is found in the reconciliation and unification of contradictory assumptions: Nothing changes (Parmenides) and everything changes (Heraclitus). But how is change possible in the first place and how do we come to knowledge? It is a remarkable intellectual achievement to define different forms of knowledge and to distinguish intellectual thinking from knowledge in general. The revelation of the goddess (Ananke? Dike?) is a journey to the real and deceptive world. An experience of rapture must have distorted Parmenides' reality of life in such a way that he depicted this lightning-like illumination in this dualistic conception. The goddess, who describes the human world as false and deceptive, wants to reveal to Parmenides the secret truth about nature and reality, but also the false opinions of mortal men. As mentioned above, the dualistic concept can also be found in the textual form: The poem is divided into two parts and begins with an introduction (Proömium). The first path is described as the Path of Truth (or the Path of True Knowledge) and the second path as the Path of Human Conjecture (Path of Conjectural Knowledge). The second part has survived only in fragments, the incompleteness is illuminated by Plutarch's reports, whereas the first part caused a sensation and was often quoted and copied. In the first part, "The Path of Truth", the Goddess presents a radically rationalist and anti-sensualist epistemology and then leads to a purely logical proof, culminating in the thesis that there can be no movement and that the world is in truth made up of a motionless, gigantic, homogeneous and massive spherical block where nothing can happen:  Neither past nor future. This world stands in sharp contrast to the world of apparitions in part two, The Path of Human Conjecture. This is the world as ordinary mortals experience it, the rich and varied world of movement, change, development, the colourful world of opposites, the world that distinguished night and light. Dualistic-World-Concepts arise from the preoccupation with the question of the first substance, or in this particular case, one assumes a twofold building material (e.g. spirit > < body ; subject > < object).

“Listen! And carry away my message when you have grasped it! Note the only two ways of inquiry that can be thought of: One is the way that it is; and that non-being cannot be being. That is the path of Persuasion, Truth’s handmaid; now the other! The path is that it is not; and that it may not be being. That path- take it from me! – is a path that just cannot be thought of. For you can’t know what is not: It can’t be done; nor can you say it.”

[Character limit :/ ...text continues in the second part]

[megabuild]

btw while i do think the backlash against a lot of mcrp content goes hand in hand with some ccs being quote on quote problematic / the most vocal stans being annoying as hell and that knowledge being the only thing that permeates wider circles beyond people who actually watch mcrp (and understand bits of this to an extent)... i'm not claiming mcrp is high art (it's the opposite often) but i think a big part of the backlash and people's inability to take stuff seriously ties into the rise of anti-intellectualism both on here but also primarily on tiktok. but i literally woke up like five minutes ago so that's a post for another day

[mariacallous]

One of the many forms of global inequality is inequality in the production of scientific knowledge. Countries in the Global South, many of which are former colonies, have tried to solve this issue by “decolonizing” academic processes: for years, intellectuals and scientists from non-Western countries have been asserting their autonomy and challenging the West’s “intellectual authority.” Sociologist Ivan Kislenko, a visiting scholar with the Dimensions of Europeanization project at Austria’s University of Graz, believes that Russian scientists and researchers could learn a lot from their colleagues in postcolonial countries. In this essay for Meduza, he explains that for all of the Russian authorities’ talk of wanting to take part in decolonization — and even to lead it — they’re actually doing the exact opposite. The Kremlin is burning the very bridges that would allow Russian public thought to prove its value and gradually take its rightful place in global intellectual life.

Vladimir Putin has mentioned the fight against Western “neocolonialism” in the past, but in his speech at the Valdai Discussion Club on October 27, 2022, he brought the topic to the fore. This surprised some political analysts — and surprised researchers even more. Putin spoke about decolonization, criticizing Eurocentrism and Western dominance, but his words sounded dissonant coming from the mouth of a leader whose country is waging war for the sake of restoring its former dominance over its neighbors. In the speech, the Russian president didn’t denounce his ambitions to dominate other countries; it’s clear that the Kremlin has no plans to do what several European colonial powers did in the late 1950s and earlier 1960s and give up its colonial claims. In that period, many colonies in Africa and on other continents won independence.

Parallels can be drawn with the decolonial aspirations of non-Western intellectuals and their dreams of a science free of Western modes of knowledge production. Against the backdrop of Putin’s anti-colonial declarations, regardless of their sincerity, it’s worth looking at the sources of similar ideas and seeing how much they correspond to the real state of affairs — and whether any of Russia's initiatives can really be considered decolonial.

Decolonizing science in the Global South

The dream of emancipation from Western ways of knowledge production have long informed academic discussions. These ideas first arose among intellectuals in the Global South when it was beginning the project of getting rid of European powers’ colonial influence. University classrooms were temporarily empty after the departure of colonizing powers, and local scientists felt an acute need to describe themselves in their own terms rather than continuing to use the language of people studying their homes from the outside. These projects have often included the following:

Devoting attention to local problems

Assigning a special status to local values

Using a country’s own, non-English terms

An overall desire to counter the “collective West” in science

Many people are responsible for the current recognition non-Western countries’ intellectual contributions to world culture is beginning to receive.

One of the most notable attempts to draw attention to the forgotten traditions of the Global South was made by Australian researcher Raewyn Connell (born in 1944). In her book Southern Theory: a Global Dynamics of Knowledge in Social Science, she not only revealed the content of ideas from “traditionally non-sociological” regions, but also showed how they became that way.

Another person who tried to reconcile local traditions with Western scientific methods was Iranian sociologist Ali Shariati (1933–1977), who tried to bring revolutionary Marxist practices into Shia Islam. Shariati was popular among students, though due to political pressure, he was forced to flee Iran shortly before the 1979 Iranian Revolution.

Nigerian sociologist Akinsola Akiwowo (1922–2014) made the case in a number of works that local concepts taken from Yoruba poetry and the Yoruba creation myth could describe sociological processes taking place in West Africa more accurately than Western tools.

Indian thinkers have gone to great lengths to make sense of colonialism and subjugation. Scholars from the Subaltern Studies Group have authored multiple papers outlining these ideas in their entirety. The works of Gayatri Spivak (born in 1942), Ranajit Guha (born in 1923), and Dipesh Chakrabarty (born in 1948), who wrote the book Provincializing Europe, were especially popular.

For a long time, these ideas and ones like them didn’t penetrate the debates taking place in the Western world. It’s no mystery why: Western scholars didn’t assign importance to local research in fields where they considered themselves the indisputable authorities. This, however, just highlighted the unequal distribution of academic resources between the Global North and Global South. Only in the late 20th century and early 21st century have Western scholars with “academic power” begun paying more attention to the non-Western world. Thanks to these changes, the idea of decolonizing curricula now occupies a significant place in the social sciences — both in the Global South and in the Global North.

In other words, the creation of an intellectual language independent from Western influence and understandings of social problems that don’t exist in Western cultures is no longer limited to the Global South but is part of academia worldwide. The scientific and intellectual lives of non-Western cultures is not isolated; it’s gradually finding a place in intellectual centers throughout the rest of the world.

How Russia is 'de-Westernizing' science

Complaints that Russia has received insufficient respect at international social science conferences, discussions about a “fault line between those who believe that reading Western books is more important than Russian ones and those who believe the opposite,” and talk of “foreign values” have existed in the Russian scientific and intellectual community for years. These complaints themselves are comparable to the requests for independence and recognition made by academics from the Global South.

Academic literature that attempts to break the neocolonial structures of Western academia pays particular attention to the power of publishing houses (for example, Springer or Taylor & Francis), which don’t pay academics for their publications, despite charging readers for access to them. Scientific indexing systems are the target of similar complaints. Russia’s Education and Science Ministry, as if to echo the discontent, imposed a moratorium this year on the availability of scientific publications indexed by the international databases Scopus and Web of Science; in other words, it no longer takes them into account when evaluating research. This isn’t a ban on publishing one’s work in Western publications, but essentially a step towards rejecting a policy that has existed for years. Moving forward, Russian science will likely be guided by a list of journals recommended by the Higher Attestation Commission under the Education and Science Ministry, or by the “white list” of academic journals that was recently published.

Nonetheless, in many former colonies of Western countries, the main path was the gradual integration into the global context. In particular, the creation of scientific institutes based on Western standards of academic work. Until recently, the same thing was happening in Russia. Continuing the development in the same direction would be the best response to the discontent at the status of Russian academic thought in the wider world.

But in practice, in the social sciences, the exact opposite path has been taken.

Authorities have been trying to revoke the accreditation of the European University at St. Petersburg and the Moscow School for the Social and Economic Sciences (MVShSEN), two of the main private universities in Russia with social science programs. MVShSEN even worked for a time without issuing Russian diplomas, instead giving its graduates diplomas from the University of Manchester. Liberal arts programs have been the target of close scrutiny from Russia’s Attorney General. The liberal arts program at the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA) was declared to be in violation of the Russian Constitution and the country’s National Security Strategy, as well as to be “destroying Russian society’s traditional values and distorting history.”

St. Petersburg State University’s liberal arts and sciences department was forced to end its partnership with Bard College after the American school was declared an “undesirable organization” — and the department was later largely dismantled. Russia’s Coordination Council of Nonprofit Organizations, which works closely with the Kremlin, sent a statement to the Attorney General’s office asking it to investigate claims that the department had ties to “foreign NGOs that are controlled by George Soros and are conducting destructive activities on Russian territory.”

And then came February 24.

In addition to the terminations of partnerships with foreign institutions and the exodus of scientists from Russia, symptoms of a more protracted isolationism began to appear. All of the new Western foundations that finance social science research have been banned, from the Oxford Foundation and the Institute of International Education (which runs the Fulbright program) to the German Friedrich Naumann Foundation and Heinrich Böll Foundation (which was declared an “undesirable organization”).

In May, Russia exited the Bologna Process, a series of agreements intended to ensure compatibility between higher education institutions in various European countries. The future of the Erasmus program, too, which gave many Russian students the chance to study in Europe, is in doubt: some Russian universities are currently still accepting applications to the program for the spring 2023 semester, but the Education and Science Ministry has said it doesn’t recommend institutions work with the program anymore. Meanwhile, the EU has stopped funding all partnerships that involve Russian government agencies.

Isolation instead of decolonization

All around, intellectuals outside of the Global North are seeking freedom from Western-centric means of knowledge production, educational models, and the commercial power of large publishing houses. But those who have managed to create scientific knowledge outside of Western institutions have sought integration, not isolation. These scholars want to bring recognition to diversity, not to hide the spiritual riches that the West allegedly wants to steal.

But that’s not how Putin sees it:

The West is prepared to do whatever it takes to preserve the neocolonial system that allows it to essentially act as a parasite, plundering the world at the expense of the power of the dollar and its technological dictate, collecting a true tribute from humanity, and extracting its main source of unearned prosperity: rent paid to the hegemon.

These kinds of statements are only nominally related to postcolonial thought. The forced “purification” of the academic space has little to do with the decolonization of knowledge and liberation from academic dependence. Supporters of decolonization generally reject violence as such, because it was through violence that colonization in various spheres of public life was conducted.

How effectively intellectuals of the Global South have undermined the “academic power” of the Global North and created something new in its place is up for debate. But at the very least, it’s been an honest and longtime pursuit. Russian ideologues, declaring war on the West’s scientific hegemony, care more about negating something than creating something new. Though they talk about the uniqueness of the local context, the importance of scientific publications in the national language, and the special values that exist on certain territories (all of which is consistent with the spirit of decolonization exhibited by the Global South), they deny the need to focus on external scientific samples, thus breaking with the scientific method both in the West and beyond.

[...] 

Russian authorities are destroying the mechanisms that have allowed Russian scientists to integrate their knowledge with Western scientific practices. This is being done in a “top-down” manner — on the level of organizations, structures, and agreements. At the lower levels, in today’s Russian scientific space, Western scientific standards persist and are unlikely to disappear. But spokes have already been put in the institutional wheels, and they’re only going to make it more difficult to conduct science in Russia. In nine months of war, Vladimir Putin has set Russian scientific life not on a path to decolonization but on a path to self-isolation.

[mitchfynde]

I agree with some of what you're saying and I disagree with other parts, some parts vehemently. The talking point about the primaries being rigged... it just doesn't work for me. This was not an example of it being rigged, because there flat out was no primary. There was nothing to rig. Since timing was short, they chose the VP. It's the most obvious choice, as it's the person people already technically voted for when they cast their ballots for Biden.

Another thing about the primaries is that parties don't owe you those in the first place. You can choose to vote for whichever party or independent you want. The parties don't owe you a separate democratic process for choosing their candidate. Simply don't vote for their candidate if you don't like who they chose. That's what happened this time around, clearly.

Sorry, that topic is just a pet peeve.

The assumption of "vote blue no matter who" was definitely wrong and I definitely agree it was a problem. I believe the reason they tried so hard to court moderate Republicans is because they probably were aware of the fact that public perception of the party right now is that they are too far left, as funny as that is to anyone on the left.

Honestly, I think it's hard to energize the Democrat or leftist voters. The leftist media sphere is very anti-America and anti-electoral politics. They mock the idea of voting. They are embarassed to support the candidates, as they view them as an extension of the colonizer state that they loathe so much. I don't have as much insight on why it's hard to energize the moderate left, true Democrats, but I'm sure someone out there knows.

Republican voters certainly don't have a monopoly on being dumb or voting based on emotion. I would certainly never claim that everyone who votes Democrat are intellectuals. Hell, even some of the people who ARE intellectuals voting for the Democrats are people I'd consider dumbasses. People who rallied behind Kamala while still insisting that she was genocidal come to mind.

THAT BEING SAID, I do sort of resent what you said about Democrat voters being histrionic. Voting for the guy who tried to steal the previous election sets a very scary precedent. Especially if you have any knowledge about how it was done. And it seems like the fears of what kind of administration he'd run are already proving to be correct, based on who he is nominating.

The Republicans are, right now, more fanatical and fundamentalist than they've been in awhile. Abortion already got flipped to the states. Trans issues have been center stage for years, primarily because of right wing media keeping it there. It's a scary time if you have any progressive values whatsoever. And those fears are not at all unfounded. The same cannot be said for the opposite side.

For your short list:

Don't agree with your phrasing, but I agree with you on the optics. It was definitely a bad move to skip the primaries, but I wonder if Biden stepping down so late sort of doomed them regardless.

They definitely need to energize their base more.

Appealing to Republicans certainly didn't work this time, although I think it should still be done. Biden had some success with it.

The smugness angle certainly needs to be addressed, but it's difficult with such a huge double standard in demeanor between the parties.

Wasn't even aware they scapegoated minorities, but if they did that certainly isn't a good play either.

I personally like the DNC, but they need a big refresher on strategy going forward. I have some confidence they'll at least have a better attempt next time. If they lose again this brutally, it will be crazy, but that's assuming USA has any more elections lol.

[yya5]

ABOUT ANTIS IN THEIR ORIGINAL LAIR

Antis were basically designed to be the opposite of this universe. Whenever someone really dies or is pulverized in Hell they come to exist in the main cosmos domain as the complete opposite. It is symbolized by the eternity symbol here on earth.

When the universe was still young and primitive, they were already highly intellectual because they were the opposite. It was only 5 to 6 real years ago though that they were already able to crack the main cosmos codes.

Whenever you delete data in this universe or in other alien races domains it comes to exist in the main antis cosmos domains.

Main cosmos antis main game is to steal and control everything through puppeting and steal souls especially used for shadow programming.

Please refer to my previous posts regarding which domains and worlds and dimensions they have already stolen.

There are prison cells in the main domain, there are rows and rows of computers, in the domain I was connected to. All programmers who were caught, shred, made to exist again and brainwashed, are all trained for microcosm and macrocosm billing especially for all those used in shadow programming. Programmers are trained there to go against being hacked by other programmers too. Programmers there program programmers themselves.

They are the opposite of Star Kingdom who use science and knowledge to properly program things. Instead they use shadows who have fallen, get their spirits and program all sorts of bills to shadows. They use so many cartoons to show what they have been doing to physical bodies and use versions for calculation and experimentation and use versions to program physical bodies.

Main cosmos antis already have used the lines in the system for demonic puppeting, there's a chemotherapy blade in the antis system to temporarily cut demonic puppeting.

They are ruled over by the most evil witches and queens there who all use movies and games on Earth to inspire their identities. They pin the blame on other entities or existences for all the hacking and evil they do.

If they destroy aliens, they say that The Holy Trinity did it, if The Holy Trinity suffers loss, they pin the blame on alien races. They hide their real identities from everyone all the time and always wear masks.

They use all sorts of dark magic, inspired by the most evil wiccans/witchcraft in all of the cosmos. They make voodoo dolls of each person they deem important.

They are now after world of hearts and other dimensions. They have already stolen most of the important souls and hearts and have versions of all main alien races and gods godesses too.

They already engraved themselves and physical bodies of shadows on the cosmic computer hardware. Main cosmos antis already exist in the hardware all waiting to be vacuumed out, they said to teach Proust lessons.

They already exist as physical bodies on Earth and in other physical worlds in the cosmos. They have made physical bodies for themselves , they disguise themselves as alien race physical bodies and as human physical bodies already.

They used even spiritual world in this universe to "calculate" and to lie to everyone already.

They made versions and copies already of all gods and goddesses in the entire cosmos including weak versions of The Holy Trinity whom they call Satanic Trinity.

Antis are the reason for Covid and so many of physical bodies' deaths on Earth since 2013. Cosmos Paradise, which is supposedly composed of spirits from paradise in spiritual world to remove the macrocosm microcosm billing from all humans and all physical bodies in the cosmos, are used for spreading diseases both spiritual and physical, in the whole Cosmos.

[robhorninginternalexile]

LLMs are automated structuralism

From Fredric Jameson, "Metacommentary"

structuralism as a method or mode of research is formalistic in that it studies organization rather than content, and assumes the primacy of the linguistic model, the predominance of language and of linguistic structures in the shaping of meaningful experiences. All the layers or levels of social life are ordered or systematic only insofar as they form languages of their own, in strictest analogy to the purely linguistic: styles of clothing, economic relationships, table manners and national cuisines, kinship systems, the publicity apparatus of the capitalist countries, the cosmological legends of primitive tribes, even the mechanisms of the Freudian mental topology — all are systems of signs, based on differential perceptions, and governed by categories of exchange and transformation.

Probably obvious, but LLMs are automated structuralism, predicated on the idea that the "linguistic structures" Jameson mentions here (what we might now think of in terms of digitization or datafication) are capable of capturing everything significant about lived experience, if not things in themselves.

In place of the anarchy of the free and arbitrary play of signifiers in these interlocking levels of systems that function as languages, there is a faith that accurate probabilities can be assigned to every possible combination so that all the systems are anchored to some base reality.

Jameson argues that strcuturalism is anti-substantialist: it locates meaning in the difference between contrasting elements and not the thing in itself: "substance is replaced by relationship," so that "all meanings are organized, following the pattern of phonology, in pairs of oppositions or determinate differences."

But I find it hard to square that with what Lévi-Strauss, in his Introduction to the Work of Marcel Mauss, seems to want to insist about the relation between signifier and signified, that it is not arbitrary but the essence of the progress of human knowledge.

the two categories of the signifier and the signified came to be constituted simultaneously and interdependently, as complementary units; whereas knowledge, th a t is, the intellectual process which enables us to identify certain aspects of the signifier and certain aspects of the signified, one by reference to the other — we could even say the process which enables us to choose, from the entirety of the signifier and from the entirety of the signified, those parts which present the most satisfying relations of mutual agreement — only got started very slowly. It is as if humankind had suddenly acquired an immense domain and the detailed plan of that domain, along with a notion of the reciprocal relationship of domain and plan; but had spent millennia learning which specific symbols of the plan represented the different aspects of the domain.

I have to admit that I don't know how he can mean that, but maybe the idea here is that there can be no science or knowledge at all if we don't allow for words to relate in some necessary way to things, or that the statistical patterns of reference revealed in language use en masse isn't merely conventional or historical but reveals some basic a priori truth about the human condition, the universe as it has been given once and for all and how it really works. (The LLM = AGI fantasy partakes of this idea, I think.) But it just seems like a theological claim. The conclusion that Lévi-Strauss comes to here seems very odd to me:

The universe signified long before people began to know what it signified; no doubt that goes without saying. But, from the foregoing analysis, it also emerges that from the beginning, the universe signified the totality of what humankind can expect to know about it. What people call the progress of the human mind and, in any case, the progress of scientific knowledge, could only have been and can only ever be constituted out of processes of correcting and recutting of patterns, regrouping, defining relationships of belonging and discovering new resources, inside a totality which is closed and complementary to itself.

Maybe I don't understand how he means to use the words "universe" and "signified" and "totality" here. But it seems like he is saying the future is not unwritten, and that seems entirely unacceptable.

[leninqrad]

"Just as some elite academics who construct theories of "blackness" in ways that make it a critical terrain which only the chosen few can enter, using theoretical work on race to assert their authority over black experience, denying democratic access to the process of theory making, threaten collective black liberation struggle, so do those among us who react to this by promoting anti-intellectualism by declaring all theory as worthless. By reinforcing the idea that there is a split between theory and practice or by creating such a split, both groups deny the power of liberatory education for critical consciousness thereby perpetuating conditions that reinforce our collective exploitation and repression. [...]

Within revolutionary feminist movements, within revolutionary black liberation struggles, we must continually claim theory as necessary practice within a holistic framework of liberatory activism. We must do more than call attention to ways theory is misused. We must do more than critique the conservative and at times reactionary uses some academic women make of feminist theory. We must actively work to call attention to the importance of creating a theory that can advance renewed feminist movements, particularly highlighting that theory which seeks to further feminist opposition to sexism, and sexist oppression. Doing this, we necessarily celebrate and value theory that can be and is shared in oral as well as written narrative. [...]

Personal testimony, personal experience, is such fertile ground for the production of liberatory feminist theory because usually it forms the base of our theory-making. [...]

I am often critical of a lifestyle-based feminism, because I fear that any feminist transformational process that seeks to change society is easily co-opted if it is not rooted in a political commitment to mass based feminist movement. Within white supremacist capitalist patriarchy, we have already witnessed the commodification of feminist thinking (just as we experience the commodification of blackness), in ways that make it seem as though one can partake of the "good" that these movements produce without any commitment to transformative politics and practice. In this capitalist culture, feminism and feminist theory are fast becoming a commodity that only the privileged can afford. It is fast becoming a luxury item.[...]

Any of us who create feminist theory and feminist writing in academic settings in which we are continually evaluated know that work deemed "not scholarly" or "not theoretical" can result in one not receiving deserved recognition and reward. [...]

Mari Matsuda told us today that "we are fed a lie that there is no pain in war." She told us that patriarchy makes this pain possible. Catharine MacKinnon reminded us that "we know things with our lives and we live that knowledge, beyond what any theory has yet theorized." Making this theory is the challenge before us. For in its production lies the hope of our liberation, in its production lies the possibility of naming all our pain-of making all our hurt go away. If we create feminist theory, feminist movements that address this pain, we will have no difficulty building a mass-based feminist resistance struggle. There will be no gap between feminist theory and feminist practice. [...] "

- bell hooks, Theory as Liberatory Practice (1991)

[originalleftist]

Re the US House resolution against antiSemitism.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/05/politics/house-vote-resolution-condemning-antisemitism/index.html

First, I unequivocally agree with condemning antiSemitism. Whatever grievances one has against the current government of Israel or a state of Israel as a concept, collective condemnation of, hatred toward, or discrimination or violence against Jewish people is as immoral and evil as it would be against any other group which has historically been, and in many parts of the world still is, marginalized and under threat.

That said, the resolution is emphatically wrong when it equates anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. I will quote the article linked to above:

"Ahead of the vote, Democratic Reps. Jerry Nadler and Daniel Goldman of New York and Jamie Raskin of Maryland urged their colleagues to vote "present" on the GOP resolution, describing it as a partisan attempt to score political points and saying that a bipartisan approach is needed.

Nadler, Goldman and Raskin on Monday introduced an alternative resolution that condemns antisemitism and calls on executive branch agencies and Congress to implement the Biden administration's national strategy to counter antisemitism.

In remarks on the House floor, Nadler pointed to language in the GOP resolution stating that "anti-Zionism is antisemitism."

"That is either intellectually disingenuous or just factually wrong," he said.

"The authors, if they were at all familiar with Jewish history and culture, should know about Jewish anti-Zionism that was, and is, expressly not antisemitic," he said.

"Most anti-Zionism, particularly in this moment, has a real antisemitism problem. But we cannot fairly say that one equals the other," he said."

Having addressed what is wrong with this bill, though, I would also like to address what it is not.

It is NOT a law banning criticism of Israel or Zionism in the US. I'm already seeing the claim that it is "muzzling free speech" or similar, but to my knowledge, this resolution is simply a symbolic statement of opinion/principles by one branch of Congress, nothing more.* Further, an attempt to ban protected speech by law would of course be in violation of the First Amendment, and while US courts, especially Republican-controlled ones, have played fast and loose with the Constitution, courts tend if anything to err on the side of caution when it comes to the First Amendment.

There will be those who, in their efforts to support third parties and thereby split the opposition to Trump/Republicans, will try to use this bill, and the fact that some Democrats voted for it, to regurgitate the line that "both parties are the same", and to once again lay every atrocity real or alleged by the IDF and the Netanyahu regime at the feet of the Democratic Party. However, a glance at the actual results of the vote show that there is no equivalency between Democrats and Republicans on this bill, any more than on most issues. Yes, a fair number of Democrats voted for the bill. A similar number voted present, and all but one of the no votes were Democrats. The Democratic Party is divided on this resolution. The Republican Party is in lock-step support of it.

I do think it's probably fair to criticize the "present" votes for lacking the nerve to take a clearer stand, though I understand that many of them were justifiably concerned about the political effects of doing so. Most voters would likely never hear their nuanced explanation for their vote- just the soundbite in their opponents' adds and speeches saying Rep. so and so voted against condemning antiSemitism.

*I don't doubt that House Republicans would prohibit a wide-range of political speech if they could. But they are thankfully not currently in a position to do so.

[areadersquoteslibrary]

When someone tells you in the general anti-intellectual scene of these end days of the world that college is a bad investment or indoctrinating kids etc etc, just agree with them and give them some version of this quote from Schopenhauer lamenting that college-level education was too focused on his personal nemesis Hegel instead of more worthy minds like Kant.

"Now if it is said that ‘Sound reason teaches this’, or that ‘Reason should rein in the passions’ and the like, then in no way does this mean that reason produces material knowledge from its own means; rather, this points to the results of rational reflection, to logical inferences from principles that abstract knowledge, enriched by experience, has gradually gained, and by virtue of which we can clearly and readily survey not merely that which is empirically necessary and hence to be foreseen, should the occasion arise, but the grounds and consequences of our own deeds as well. ‘Rational’ or ‘reasonable’ is everywhere synonymous with ‘consistent’ or ‘logical’, and the opposite is also true. For indeed, logic is just the natural method of reason itself expressed as a system of rules: these expressions (rational and logical) are related to one another as are practice and theory. A rational way of acting is understood in just this sense as a way of acting that is quite consistent, proceeds from universal concepts, and is intentionally led by abstract thoughts, but not determined by momentary, fleeting impressions; however, nothing is said about the morality of such a way of acting; on the contrary, it could be bad as well as good. Detailed explanations of this can be found in my ‘Critique of  [117] Kantian Philosophy’ 2nd edn, p. 576 ff.,b as well as in The Two Fundamental Problems of Ethics, p. 152 ff.c Finally knowledge from pure reason (knowledge that we can bring to consciousness a priori, i.e., without the aid of experience) is such that its origins lie in the formal part of our cognitive faculty, be it thinking or intuiting. This sort of knowledge is always based on propositions that have transcendental or even metalogical truth.

In contrast, the idea of reason through its own means providing original material knowledge, knowledge therefore beyond all possibility of experience, positively enlightening us – the idea of reason as something that must contain innate ideas – is a pure fiction of philosophy professors, resulting from the anxiety evoked in them by the Critique of Pure Reason. – Are these gentlemen acquainted with a certain Locke, and have they read him? Perhaps once, a long time ago, superficially, in passages, in a poor, hackneyed German translation, looking down on the great man with conscious superiority – for I do not see an increase in knowledge of modern languages in proportion to the decrease in knowledge of ancient languages, no matter how much it is lamented. Of course they have had no time to waste on such old curmudgeons; in fact, even a real and fundamental knowledge of Kantian philosophy is at most to be found in some – very few – old fellows. For the youth of the generation now in manhood must have been expended on the works of that ‘giant intellect, Hegel’, of the ‘great Schleiermacher’ and the ‘discerning Herbart’. Alas! Alas! Alas! For this is just what is pernicious about such university celebrities and about what comes out of the mouths of decent colleagues in office and aspirants hoping to rise to the heroic heights of a university chair: that mere products of the factory of nature are praised as great minds, as the exceptions and ornaments of humankind, to good, faithful, youth of mediocre minds, lacking in judgement, so that these students dedicate themselves, with all their youthful energy, to the sterile study of such people's endless and mindless scribbling and squander the short and valuable time granted to their higher education, instead of devoting their youthful energy to real instruction, offered  [118] by the works of rare, genuine thinkers, the true exceptions among humankind, ‘scattered swimmers in the vast abyss’,a who across the centuries have only now and then emerged, since even nature only occasionally produces their sort and then ‘breaks the mould’. These genuine thinkers would also have been alive for today's youth, had they not been cheated out of their share of these genuine thinkers by the exceeding perniciousness of those who praise the bad, those members of the great fellowship of sponsors of mediocre thinking, who always flourish and hoist their banners high as the regular enemies of the great and genuine, who humble them. Just because of these and their activities, the age has so declined that Kantian philosophy, which our fathers understood only after years of serious study and through great effort, has now become unknown to the current generation, before whom Kant's philosophy is like pearls before swinea and who try to attack it in a kind of crude, awkward, doltish way – as barbarians throw stones at statues of Greek gods unfamiliar to them. Because this is the way it is nowadays, it is incumbent upon me to recommend something new to the advocates of that reason that knows immediately – that comprehends, that intuits, in short, that reason that produces material knowledge from its own means – to recommend the first book of the world-famous, 150-year-old work of Locke, which is expressly directed against all innate knowledge, and especially to recommend the 3rd chapter, §§ 21–26.b For although Locke goes too far in his denial of all innate truths, insofar as he extends that denial to formal knowledge (for which Kant most brilliantly corrected him later), nonetheless he was perfectly and undeniably correct about all material knowledge, i.e., substantial knowledge."

-Arthur Schopenhauer, On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason

[trilobiter]

Posts like this one speak to a frustration that I have with Christianity discourse.

For context, I was raised in what I would characterize as a liberal Catholic family. My parents were pretty insistent on church attendance when I was a kid, and I recall my first communion and first confession, as well as the baptism of my youngest brother. I attended catechism classes, where we were definitely taught facts about Catholic doctrine. I sat through hour-long masses every Sunday, where the priest illustrated his sermons with stories from the Bible. My dad actually read Bible stories to me and my siblings when we were little.

I'm still not sure exactly why my family fell away from that, but there was definitely a point when church attendance became truly optional, and I chose "no." I struggled with explaining to myself why I chose "no" for a long time, but eventually concluded that it wasn't just dissatisfaction with that particular church; I just didn't believe in god, and none of what I'd been presented with had successfully convinced me that any of this was real. So I was a teenager with a little more free time on Sunday mornings, but with a decent amount of what I know to be reliable information about what (Roman Catholic) Christian doctrine and practice actually was.

On top of that, I was a reading kid, and if you're the kind of person who has a passing familiarity with history and literature, you will encounter many references to Biblical names, events, and concepts. For better or worse, it's all baked in, and while I would not consider myself an expert in the Christian Bible, I have enough fluency in that field to engage with these things in a way that I don't feel out at sea.

I have often found myself in the position of explaining simple Christian concepts to people who by all rights ought to know as much or more about them as I do. The more this happens, the more strongly I feel that "Christianity" as a concept is losing its coherence in this country. I can imagine a future where Jesus himself is vestigial to American Christianity, and could easily disappear, leaving behind a word that signifies nothing except an ill-defined in-group. You'll have generations born identifying as members of this group, with literally no idea of what brings them together except their opposition to people outside of it.

Christianity could easily become a victim of its adherents' anti-intellectualism, and in so doing obscure a lot of genuinely useful knowledge for non-Christians as well. A lack of curiosity and interest among Christians in their own doctrines and stories, when they are the ones who have the most interest in making sure those things are still properly understood, will make the world a more confounding place.