Rate Thread
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Gay Amish
#31
Inchante Wrote:We run into the problem that is inherent in the conflicts between pluralism and monism.
[Image: cisp_a_419948_o_um0001.gif]
Reply

#32
pellaz Wrote:[Image: cisp_a_419948_o_um0001.gif]

In critical theory, a binary opposition (also binary system) is a pair of related terms or concepts that are opposite in meaning. Binary opposition is the system by which, in language and thought, two theoretical opposites are strictly defined and set off against one another.[1] It is the contrast between two mutually exclusive terms, such as on and off, up and down, left and right.[2] Binary opposition is an important concept of structuralism, which sees such distinctions as fundamental to all language and thought [3] In structuralism, a binary opposition is seen as a fundamental organizer of human philosophy, culture, and language. In the community of philosophers and scholars, most believe that, as Derrida put it, "unless a distinction can be made rigorous and precise it isn't really a distinction."[4]

Binary opposition originated in Saussurean structuralist theory.[5] According to Ferdinand de Saussure, the binary opposition is the means by which the units of language have value or meaning; each unit is defined against what it is not.[6] Saussure demonstrated that a sign's meaning is derived from its context (syntagmatic dimension) and the group (paradigm) to which it belongs.[7] An example of this is that one cannot conceive of 'good' if we do not understand 'evil'.[8] In post-structuralism, it is seen as one of several influential characteristics or tendencies of Western and Western-derived thought,[citation needed] and that typically, one of the two opposites assumes a role of dominance over the other. The categorization of binary oppositions is "often value-laden and ethnocentric", with an illusory order and superficial meaning.[9]

A classic example of a binary opposition is[citation needed] the presence-absence dichotomy. In much of Western thought, including structuralism, distinguishing between presence and absence, viewed as polar opposites, is a fundamental element of thought in many cultures. In addition, according[citation needed] to post-structuralist criticisms, presence occupies a position of dominance in Western thought over absence, because absence is traditionally seen as what you get when you take away presence. (Had absence been dominant, presence might have most naturally been seen as what you get when you take away an absence.) It has been maintained that the human brain has a preference for binary oppositions, if this is so it will help explain the numerous pairs of related antonyms that are found such as hot and cold, right and wrong and good and bad[10]

Essentially the concept of the binary opposition is[citation needed] prompted by the Western tendency to organise everything into a hierarchal structure; terms and concepts are related to positives and negatives with no apparent leeway for deviation for example man and woman, black and white.[11] Therefore many binary oppositions are organised in a hierarchy.[12] According to Jacques Derrida,[citation needed] meaning in the West is defined in terms of binary oppositions, “a violent hierarchy” where “one of the two terms governs the other.” Within the white/ black binary opposition in the West, the African American is defined as a devalued other.[13]

The concept of binary oppositions is[citation needed] also evident in biblical thought and ideology. An[citation needed] explanatory combination of biblical verses in the scrolls turn a term of divine compassion into a measure of binary opposition—innocence versus guilt.[12]

A more concrete example of a binary opposition is the male-female dichotomy. Some[citation needed] western thinkers, including structuralists, believe that the world is organized according to male and female constructs, roles, words, and ideas. A post-structuralist view is[citation needed] that male can be seen, according to traditional Western thought, as dominant over female because male is the presence of a phallus, while the vagina is an absence or loss. (Alternatively, Western thought could have viewed female as a presence, and male, subordinately, as the absence, or loss, of an invagination or theoretical "hole" of some kind.) The correspondence between each of the dominant Western concepts such as presence and male, as well as others such as rational (vs. emotional), mind (vs. body), thoughts and speech (vs. writings) are claimed to show a tendency of Western thought called logocentrism or phallogocentrism.[14][page needed] John Searle has suggested that the concept of binary oppositions—as taught and practiced by postmodernists and poststructuralist—is specious and lacking in rigor.[15]
[edit]Deconstruction of Western binaries

The political (rather than analytic or conceptual) critique of binary oppositions is[citation needed] an important part of third wave feminism, post-colonialism, post-anarchism, and critical race theory, which argue[citation needed] that the perceived binary dichotomy between man/woman, civilized/savage, and caucasian/non-caucasian have perpetuated and legitimized Western power structures favoring "civilized white men." In the last fifteen years it has become[citation needed] routine for many social and/or historical analysis to address the variables of gender, class, sexuality, race and ethnicity.[16] Within each of these categories there is usually an unequal[citation needed] binary opposition: bourgeoisie/ working class man; white/people of colour; men/women; heterosexual/homosexual[17]

Post-structural criticism of binary oppositions is[citation needed] not simply the reversal of the opposition, but its deconstruction, which is[citation needed] described as apolitical—that is, not intrinsically favoring one arm of a binary opposition over the other. Deconstruction is[citation needed] the "event" or "moment" at which a binary opposition is thought to contradict itself, and undermine its own authority.[18]
Reply

#33
excellent.
Reply

#34
Inchante Wrote:We run into the problem that is inherent in the conflicts between pluralism and monism. When pluralism runs up against monism, it deconstructs, it implodes, it actually becomes monism. This is why true diversity must allow for those groups who do not believe in diversity. Anything short of that is hypocrisy and is its own form of bigotry.

You didn't offend me. I just don't understand why people don't realize that freedom is allowing each to pursue good in their own way. Which is why I think it needs to be said in 5 point font.

As far as the rest of your argument, women have a choice. They see what the rest of the world has to offer them during Rumspringa, and they can leave at any time during their life. Some do and some do not.

As far as hypothetical domestic violence, I don't know. It is hypothetical. But, when I see people who are genuinely shocked at the idea of someone harming another person, I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt when they say they do not know violence.

I am not making an argument that the Amish should be banned from practicing their religion. I am simply stating my Opinion that it seems to me that the documentary you saw is painting on overly rosy picture of the Amish community.

Speaking of pluralism/monism. We don't allow everybody to pursue whatever religion they want. For example the U.S. Justice system worked hard and efficaciously to dismantle the Fundementalist sect of the Mormons (the F.L.D.S.) Their practice of polygamy was being disruptive to our society as a whole. They would marry pre-adolescent girls to men older than their fathers who already had 10 other wives. This meant they had to get rid of a lot of teenage boys who were thrown out of their communities for the slightest infractions. Which led to the "lost boys" (not the child soldiers in Africa. Large groups of homeless boys were found wandering around rural Utah. The former leader; warren Jeff's is now serving a life term in prison and the polygamist families had to be broken up. John Krakauer wrote a book about it titled "Under the Banner of Heaven". I am not equating the F.L.D.S. to the Amish

Yes the Amish can leave at any time, but they don't meet with former members of the Amish community who left during Rumspringa. Leaving means never seeing their families and friends behind forever, they're not allowed to come back to visit. It means leaving behind everything they know and love with no support system or skills for the real world. For these reasons the vast majority return after Rumspringa.

As far as "hypothetical" domestic violence, it's not hypothetical. Violence is unfortunately part of human nature and the Amish cannot be exempt from this trait. If domestic violence occurs in every other society than it must occur in the Amish society as well. However the police very rarely intervene, the Amish are allowed to deal with this themselves as they see fit. I remember a "60 Minutes" segment where this was discussed.

If I saw people "shocked at the idea of someone harming another person" and who claim that they don't know violence, I would know that something is off.
Reply

#35
Person66 Wrote:Yes the Amish can leave at any time, but they don't meet with former members of the Amish community who left during Rumspringa. Leaving means never seeing their families and friends behind forever, they're not allowed to come back to visit. It means leaving behind everything they know and love with no support system or skills for the real world. For these reasons the vast majority return after Rumspringa.



Reply

#36
Person66 Wrote:I am not making an argument that the Amish should be banned from practicing their religion. I am simply stating my Opinion that it seems to me that the documentary you saw is painting on overly rosy picture of the Amish community.

i had a figure you were going that way and i agree with you.
Reply

#37
pellaz Wrote:i had a figure you were going that way and i agree with you.

Which one? The one where the teens go on Rumspringa to Britain or the one where the family is excommunicated for reading the Bible in English?
Reply



Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Why don't the Amish get cancer? LONDONER 6 990 04-23-2016, 06:08 AM
Last Post: mrex

Forum Jump:


Recently Browsing
1 Guest(s)

© 2002-2024 GaySpeak.com