> Nationalism isn't normal, countries are a completely artificial construct.
So's this laptop. What's your point?
So's this laptop. What's your point?
Just like you don't literally mean "going far", which has nothing to do with distance travelled.
> Nationalism isn't normal
OK. I'm listening.
> , countries are a completely artificial construct.
So. What.
"Grass is not red," OK, I'm with you, I'm very open to what you're writing, even. "Red is an artificial construct," nice non-sequitur and it's not that it isn't true, but so what?
Personally I don't mind the artificiality of countries, but the insanity of the identities some people (artificially) construct around being randomly born somewhere (especially since people who contributed fuck all to wherever they live seem perfectly fine of being rabid nationalists)
Just like it's not a problem that your laptop is artificial, but if you start to pretend it's giving you commands, or if you just do what you want, but claim it's for the good of your laptop, then the problems begin. I wasn't just saying that to be snarky, you know, I was actually making a point. Because it's artificial, created by humans, and you are a human. I just don't know how to make it clearer than that.
I may have been randomly born somewhere, but I am grateful to my ancestors and countrymen for their self-sacrifice (sometimes giving up their lives), for the blood sweat and tears they put into building the nation to be a better place for the next generation. Calling this a form of insanity seems like insanity itself.
> especially since people who contributed fuck all to wherever they live seem perfectly fine of being rabid nationalists
I obey the law and contribute substantial income taxes to my national government that they distribute to others in ways that I don't agree with. I am likely a "rabid nationalist" as you put it, and I am proud to be this way, I believe it is righteous and beneficial.
> but if you start to pretend it's giving you commands, or if you just do what you want, but claim it's for the good of your laptop, then the problems begin
My country gives me commands and I obey them, because it is mostly for the good of my country and fellow countrymen.
I say "constructed identity", you say "I am grateful". If you twist my words to call them insane, that in itself says a lot about the security of your beliefs.
I have that gratitude, too, and I'm grateful to even more people who aren't my ancestors or countrymen. So why make that distinction? It's like saying "I'm grateful to the people with blue t-shirts who showed me kindness in life".
I'm not seeing your point. If it's that my gratefulness is "constructed", well, guilty as charged I guess. Love and most any other emotion people feel is "constructed".
> If you twist my words to call them insane, that in itself says a lot about the security of your beliefs.
You're the one who started with the insult, I simply returned the favor while pointing out the logical flaws in your reasoning for the insult.
> I have that gratitude, too, and I'm grateful to even more people who aren't my ancestors or countrymen. So why make that distinction?
That they're different seems sufficient reason.
> It's like saying "I'm grateful to the people with blue t-shirts who showed me kindness in life".
It might be, if people in blue t-shirts actually had showed me noteworthy kindness in life. But they haven't, so therefore it actually isn't like that, at least according to my logic.
What if constructing such an identity is a trait that has been selected for in humans?
> What if constructing such an identity is a trait that has been selected for in humans?
First of, what if it isn't true? Do you have any evidence that it's true? Right now the jury is still out on the survival of organized human life, and such "identities" play no small part in that.
"selected for" can be a fancy way to say a lot of things, too. For example, some humans went crazy and started murdering others who weren't crazy in the same fashion. "evolution proved we're stronk, so let's just gang up on this person and vote them into the ground". Oh look, they comments are all grayed out, so that proves something, right? Right? Well, no. Unless you subscribe to a Mein Kampf style "might is right" philoshophy, this argument is as valid as physical violence to decide who is right.
My question is not in regard to whether anything is or isn't "fine". The point of my question was to suggest there might be a reason that people form such identities beyond some kind of collective insanity as you suggest.
>Why is the present not also part of evolution, why does something that "evolved in the past" have to be protected from criticism in this way?
You're not just criticizing it, you're calling it insanity. If there is a very good evolutionary reason for that sort of behavior, it's not insanity.
>First of, what if it isn't true?
Then it may be in contention for the longest running collective mania that has afflicted this species.
>Do you have any evidence that it's true?
Sure, humans seem to be predisposed toward forming such identities. That is evidence, though it's not conclusive.
>Right now the jury is still out on the survival of organized human life, and such "identities" play no small part in that.
OK, but that has nothing to do with this discussion.
> For example, some humans went crazy and started murdering others who weren't crazy in the same fashion. "evolution proved we're stronk, so let's just gang up on this person and vote them into the ground".
Whether it's due to genetics or culture or some combination, formulating these identities seems to have been a successful strategy in terms of populating future generations, which is what is important when it comes to wondering why we are like we are today. And if it turns out to have been helpful in the past, it is certainly worth examining to see what it can do for us today.
Then do that, who's stopping you? You just asked "what if" and then expected me to do it for you.
I'm not asking you to ponder if there are any benefits to it today. Given your attitude, I don't think any discussion on the topic would be productive.
-- Erich Fromm
I would say the person who loves just one nation over all others loves no nation. They may think they do, and they may claim it as they destroy it, but they're incapable of it. Furthermore, I think the mass societies that came into existence in the 20th century, and the rootlessness they produce, also created a form of hypernationalism which is more self-destructive hysteria than even selfish chauvinism.
You can say that, but is it true?
> They may think they do, and they may claim it as they destroy it, but they're incapable of it.
This sounds like you're saying that it's not possible for a Chinese or Japanese person to love their own country more than they love other countries. If so, do you have any evidence that supports this belief?
Do you have evidence to the contrary? Why is the burden to disprove a "love" that has never been proven on me, how would the evidence you're asking for even look like?
I could assemble a set of information that is suggestive of it, but such things are inherently subjective so it could be rightly easily dismissed as inconclusive.
> Why is the burden to disprove a "love" that has never been proven on me
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)
> The burden of proof is the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position (in this case: "I would say the person who loves just one nation over all others loves no nation").
I think it's not a huge stretch to extend this to nations:
> If a person loves only one other person and is indifferent to all others, his love is not love but a symbiotic attachment, or an enlarged egotism. Yet most people believe that love is constituted by the object, not by the faculty. In fact, they even believe that it is proof of the intensity of their love when they do not love anybody except the "loved" person.
-- Erich Fromm
As George Orwell said, either we all live in a decent world, or nobody does... personally I can't wish well for my "own" country without also wishing well to others, too. Because by the same token that I have a "right" to wish well for myself and people close to me, others also have the right to be well.
This seems like an example of this weird cognitive quirk that frequently appears in discussions on (and only on, as far as I can tell) certain identity-related topics: the apparent belief that because something is possible, therefore it is, always and everywhere.
Of course you can have passion/compassion/love for one person, but honestly, where did you pick up this idea that these feelings are some sort of a binary, that you either love all people and things identically, or you don't love anyone at all? The only thing I can think of that even remotely resembles this in observable nature is the behavior of dogs, and even there it seems mostly limited to interactions with humans and other dogs.
> If a person loves only one other person and is indifferent to all others, his love is not love but a symbiotic attachment, or an enlarged egotism. Yet most people believe that love is constituted by the object, not by the faculty. In fact, they even believe that it is proof of the intensity of their love when they do not love anybody except the "loved" person.
I can see how people can be attracted by such prose, but if you look a bit more carefully, note the extremely unusual premise it is built upon, described in the first sentence: a person who loves only one other person, and is indifferent to all others. This is so uncommon, I suspect it would be considered some form of a mental illness.
> As George Orwell said, either we all live in a decent world, or nobody does
Lots of people says lots of things all the time. The question is whether they are true and practically meaningful. Mr. Orwell may enjoy defining the entire planet in terms of a binary of decent or not, utterly ignoring the fact that this has precisely no bearing on the actual experiences of most people, and may even draw people into certain ideologies by doing so, but even a small amount of critical thinking suggests this isn't a terribly useful or "true" idea.
> personally I can't wish well for my "own" country without also wishing well to others, too
Technically, I'm not sure if I can either, because it just so happens that I wish well for my own country and people in all others, and simultaneously, I am also a passionate Nationalist. That which others seem to consider literally impossible, is absolutely effortless to me.
> Because by the same token that I have a "right" to wish well for myself and people close to me, others also have the right to be well.
I wonder if this is a noteworthy difference in our thinking, this notion of "rights". I can agree that everyone has the right to wish themselves well (the pursuit of happiness), but who's obligation is it to fulfill the "right" of being well? (Did you notice you switched from wishing to being in that sentence? Do you personally draw a distinction between the two?)