Announcement: Your votes are in! The January 2019 Philosophy Book of the Month is The Runaway Species: How Human Creativity Remakes the World by David Eagleman and Anthony Brandt.

Babel and Xenophobia

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"); such homework-help-style questions can be asked and answered on PhiloPedia: The Philosophy Wiki. If your question is not already answered on the appropriate PhiloPedia page, then see How to Request Content on PhiloPedia to see how to ask your informational question using the wiki.
User avatar
JamesOfSeattle
Posts: 475
Joined: October 16th, 2015, 11:20 pm

Re: Babel and Xenophobia

Post by JamesOfSeattle » July 3rd, 2018, 8:50 pm

Steve3007 wrote:
July 2nd, 2018, 5:03 am
JamesOfSeattle:

Yes I agree that the tension between cooperation and competition in human tribes and societies is interesting. I'm not sure if we can really say that one is better than the other. Perhaps they're just complimentary?
Actually, there is some evidence that cooperation is better, at least in situations like the prisoner’s dilemma. The best algorithm tested was Tit-for-Tat, but starting with cooperation, as opposed to starting with competition (defecting). So the idea is cooperate, but be prepared to compete.

*

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 7437
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Babel and Xenophobia

Post by Greta » July 4th, 2018, 12:32 am

JamesOfSeattle wrote:
July 3rd, 2018, 8:50 pm
Steve3007 wrote:
July 2nd, 2018, 5:03 am
JamesOfSeattle:

Yes I agree that the tension between cooperation and competition in human tribes and societies is interesting. I'm not sure if we can really say that one is better than the other. Perhaps they're just complimentary?
Actually, there is some evidence that cooperation is better, at least in situations like the prisoner’s dilemma. The best algorithm tested was Tit-for-Tat, but starting with cooperation, as opposed to starting with competition (defecting). So the idea is cooperate, but be prepared to compete.
Yes, a nice summary. Tit-for-Tat won in environments with both nice (never defects first) and nasty strategies. In a nice population it would be beaten by a more forgiving strategy, Tit-for-Two-Tats, but the latter would be exploited in a population with many nasty strategies. TFTT could be thought of as like a thoroughbred - extra affective in ideal conditions but not versatile or robust. Many feel that humans have rendered themselves vulnerable by being too specifically adapted so, if infrastructure and/or the supporting environment goes down it will be carnage.

User avatar
Maffei
New Trial Member
Posts: 17
Joined: September 7th, 2017, 7:34 pm

Re: Babel and Xenophobia

Post by Maffei » July 4th, 2018, 2:43 pm

(English is not my native language, but I'm human too. There it goes)
Rousseau pointed out that the primitive parties had two simultaneous movements: that of multiplying individual's powers when the group purpose gave identity to each one, and that of the recognition of differences by distinct roles and levels of received attention. The first movement, spontaneus, would reinforce culture and maybe give rise to nations, while the latter would bring the need to regulate individual actions, like the state. Looks like the nation is the active force when some individual or group want to impose its ideology over another, and the state is the reactive force that will hold individuality and make you live according to how you present yourself to others.

At least under such view, my response would be yes, tribal sentiments remains in despite of communication improvements, because reproducing our own subjectivity involves affirmation of elements of identity originated from groups, and simultaneously implies the negation of the Other. The exception would be the case of recognition of our common humanity, but it seems to require more than communication, that is, it requires real interest in one another.

Also in a public space like a forum you can be more sentiment-driven or be driven by citizenship principles, and maybe it's not a coincidence that hatred discourses are more likely to nationalisms. BUT I have this spinozist tendency to see that all actions are driven by affections, including the pretense neutral and scientific action based by some universal principle.

Spinoza proposes that hatred is simply the decrease of potency accompanied by the idea of its cause. So a radical and non-reflected hatred of some group or individual is a very inadequate and shallow idea of the cause of discomfort, but a moderate discourse can be perfectly caused by hatred too, even if it seems more rational or non-racist. I found brilliant the citation of Martin L. King by chewybrian:
who is more devoted to order than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace
which is the presence of justice; who constantly says, "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods
of direct action"; who paternalistically feels that he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of
time; and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of
good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will.

Post Reply