Are cultures collective delusions?

[Ecurb]

Humans have created themselves. They did this through "culture", without which we would not be human.

Our modes of thinking are influenced (even determined) by language (which is the most signigicant of human cultural developments). In fact, it appears likely that language developed in conjunction with man's biological evolution from non-human homonids to homo sapiens. As proto languages developed, they probably had adaptive advantages, so larger, more complex frontal lobes in the human brain evolved. (i.e Those homonids with a greater capacity for language survived better and left more descendants than those with a lesser capacity.) Without the cultural development of language, human biological evolution might have been quite different. (Of course we don't know the exact sequence of these events - it's speculative. However the fossil record definitely shows dramatic increases in the size of the frontal area of the brain when humans evolved from other homonids.)

¶

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
.

I see this quote from John 1 as a metaphor for the "creation" of humans. "God" represents "culture". Culture, after all, is "supernatural" (i.e. meta-biological or "artificial").

The role of language in determining thought is still controversial (the Chomskyites tend to see language as biologically determined. as opposed to the Sapir-Whorf adherents.) There can be no doubt, however, that human knowledge (including, but not limited to, scientific knowledge) is gained through reading (or listening to lectures). Most of what we "know" is therefore "culturaly determined".

[Pattern-chaser]

Strip a culture of it's pointless practices, unfounded beliefs, mythologies, empty traditions, ideologies, superstitions, religions, fashions etc and what you have left is no culture at all, but instead empirical truth.

If you strip away from culture all of the things that make it what it is, then, as you say, "what you have left is no culture at all". The items you list are some of the components of 'culture'. Why would you want to be rid of them? What is your understanding of 'culture', that you think to strip it of its 'culturedom'? Are you hoping for something like 'objective' culture?

[Pattern-chaser]

However culture can be boundless and open to all who would wish to fourish and enjoy it. Musical culture provided it is not bounded as "black" or "white" is avaliable to enrich the lives of any who appraciate it. Art and literature, (provided again the it is not bounded) can be free to all.

True enough! While culture includes music, art and literature, as you say, it also includes and embraces politics, science (the discipline, not its subject matter), mathematics, and philosophy. Everything human-created is part of human culture. [No, I don't include bridges, for example, even though humans create them. I mean to refer to culturo-mental (???) things.]

[Sculptor1]

However culture can be boundless and open to all who would wish to fourish and enjoy it. Musical culture provided it is not bounded as "black" or "white" is avaliable to enrich the lives of any who appraciate it. Art and literature, (provided again the it is not bounded) can be free to all.

True enough! While culture includes music, art and literature, as you say, it also includes and embraces politics, science (the discipline, not its subject matter), mathematics, and philosophy. Everything human-created is part of human culture. [No, I don't include bridges, for example, even though humans create them. I mean to refer to culturo-mental (???) things.]

That is not what I said.
All the things you list to "embrace" white culture can be found the world over.
Actually bridges are also culture as is Coke cans, screwdrivers and tombs.
Archaeology calls that "Material Culture".

[tsihcrana]

Strip a culture of it's pointless practices, unfounded beliefs, mythologies, empty traditions, ideologies, superstitions, religions, fashions etc and what you have left is no culture at all, but instead empirical truth.

If you strip away from culture all of the things that make it what it is, then, as you say, "what you have left is no culture at all". The items you list are some of the components of 'culture'. Why would you want to be rid of them? What is your understanding of 'culture', that you think to strip it of its 'culturedom'? Are you hoping for something like 'objective' culture?

My point wasn't that if you strip away what makes culture culture you no longer have culture, but that everything that constitutes culture is purely arbitrary (as per all the things I listed) and this was the basis of my (mistaken) proposition - that if culture is entirely consistent of arbitrary value is there not some degree of delusion involved in buying into cultural norms. I chose the word 'delusion' (poorly) because I felt at the time that arbitrarily ascribing value was akin to arbitrarily ascribing reality (I've since conceded that point, but mention it here again for clarification).

[tsihcrana]

Most of what we "know" is therefore "culturaly determined".

As I already mentioned elsewhere, I don't think it's accurate to include language in what constitutes a culture. Idiosyncratic differences in language constitute culture. So while the English language doesn't fall under the label of culture, the 'way' Americans speak it relative to Australians would.

When we're talking about the raw definition-meanings of words they're the same for Americans, Australians, Canadians, English, Irish and so on. So the language itself isn't something that allows us to differentiate between those cultures. It's only in the pronunciation, inflection, idiosyncratic phrasings and so forth that differences emerge, and these differences we call culture.

[Ecurb]

We can define words however we wish. I was using the standard anthropoogical definition of culture -- but there's no point in arguing about definitions.

[stevie]

I definitely disagree with you that culture is necessary for cognition. A person can develop notions about the world and perform mental functions thereupon entirely independent from all cultural influence....

Hmh ... I don't think so because a particular language and all kinds of corresponding linguistic expressions are an essential part of a particular culture and I can't see how conceptual thinking could be " entirely independent" of learning a particular "native" language.

Language 'expresses' thoughts/conceptions. It doesn't necessarily originate them. ...

That hypothesis depends on being able to provide evidence for a difference between 'language as thought' (meaning imputed to visible signs or audible sounds) and thought being expressed by language.

[tsihcrana]

I definitely disagree with you that culture is necessary for cognition. A person can develop notions about the world and perform mental functions thereupon entirely independent from all cultural influence....

Hmh ... I don't think so because a particular language and all kinds of corresponding linguistic expressions are an essential part of a particular culture and I can't see how conceptual thinking could be " entirely independent" of learning a particular "native" language.

Language 'expresses' thoughts/conceptions. It doesn't necessarily originate them. ...

That hypothesis depends on being able to provide evidence for a difference between 'language as thought' (meaning imputed to visible signs or audible sounds) and thought being expressed by language.

As I've previously stated, I don't see how you can establish a symbol-object (word-concept) relationship without having an already extant concept to relate the symbol to. How can words arise prior to the concepts they're applied to? You need to first distinguish a pattern before you can name it or describe it. I don't see how it could work any other way. How could you name something you've not yet conceived of at some other cognitive level?

[stevie]

tsihcrana
To me it appears as if there is an unbridgeable gap for our mutual understanding exactly because our history of conceptual conditionings (caused by our different cultures?) is different. In order to bridge that gap I think it would be necessary to transparently delineate all of our individual conceptual "learning histories" which I think would be an unnecessary effort without benefit.

[Pattern-chaser]

However culture can be boundless and open to all who would wish to fourish and enjoy it. Musical culture provided it is not bounded as "black" or "white" is avaliable to enrich the lives of any who appraciate it. Art and literature, (provided again the it is not bounded) can be free to all.

True enough! While culture includes music, art and literature, as you say, it also includes and embraces politics, science (the discipline, not its subject matter), mathematics, and philosophy. Everything human-created is part of human culture. [No, I don't include bridges, for example, even though humans create them. I mean to refer to culturo-mental (???) things.]

That is not what I said.
All the things you list to "embrace" white culture can be found the world over.
Actually bridges are also culture as is Coke cans, screwdrivers and tombs.
Archaeology calls that "Material Culture".

I think you might've mis-read what I wrote...?

[Steve3007]

Easy to mistake "while" for "white" I suppose, but strange to seriously believe that you would have been using the word "white" there. Apart from anything else there would then have been a full stop after "say".

[Sculptor1]

However culture can be boundless and open to all who would wish to fourish and enjoy it. Musical culture provided it is not bounded as "black" or "white" is avaliable to enrich the lives of any who appraciate it. Art and literature, (provided again the it is not bounded) can be free to all.

True enough! While culture includes music, art and literature, as you say, it also includes and embraces politics, science (the discipline, not its subject matter), mathematics, and philosophy. Everything human-created is part of human culture. [No, I don't include bridges, for example, even though humans create them. I mean to refer to culturo-mental (???) things.]

That is not what I said.
All the things you list to "embrace" white culture can be found the world over.
Actually bridges are also culture as is Coke cans, screwdrivers and tombs.
Archaeology calls that "Material Culture".

I think you might've mis-read what I wrote...?

If all the things that you said embrace white culture, are in fact found the world over then they are not "white" but human.

[Steve3007]

Maybe the solution is to copy the word "while" (blue one) from PC's post, paste it into MS Word or something and blow it up really big.

[Pattern-chaser]

Strip a culture of it's pointless practices, unfounded beliefs, mythologies, empty traditions, ideologies, superstitions, religions, fashions etc and what you have left is no culture at all, but instead empirical truth.

If you strip away from culture all of the things that make it what it is, then, as you say, "what you have left is no culture at all". The items you list are some of the components of 'culture'. Why would you want to be rid of them? What is your understanding of 'culture', that you think to strip it of its 'culturedom'? Are you hoping for something like 'objective' culture?

My point was ... that everything that constitutes culture is purely arbitrary...

Arbitrary by what standards? If we look at culture, from a formal and logical/scientific perspective, pretty much everything about it seems random or 'arbitrary'. But that's because we're using the wrong criteria for judgment. Cultural matters often make sense only from a cultural point of view. Some don't make sense anyway, even by cultural standards. That's part - only part! - of what culture is about.