1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

What's the point of organic particularism?

Discussion in 'Political Theory & Philosophy' started by IlluminateMe, 5 November 2017.

  1. IlluminateMe

    IlluminateMe Junior Member

    I'm really fascinated to have come across such an interesting site. Let me just say first off that it's refreshing to see a place that appears to clearly and intelligibly state the ideology it holds. So much of our mainstream and alternative media appears to be little more than propaganda and petty gossip. It does not delve into the idea underlying the movements and their justifications or flaws. I'm also grateful that you allow free speech on this forum, as long as it is sincere and polite. So thank you all for that.

    Now, I'm hoping to discuss organic particularism a bit, which seems to be an important underlying basis for the ideology of Traditionalism that holds sway here, at least from what I've gleaned. Let me also say here that I might be wrong. My ideal is to adopt or at least understand the best ideas of any idea or ideology, so if there is something I didn't believe or understand previously, my goal is to learn that and to test my current beliefs and assumptions against yours to see which I find more convincing.

    That being said, I don't see the point of organic particularism. It seems that our diversity is a result of happenstance. We humans were separated by time and space, so we've got diverse languages, beliefs, cultures, and even a degree of genetic drift. Now we have technologies that allow for instant translation and telecommunication, universalist beliefs ranging from Humanism to Communism to Christianity and Islam and Buddhism, pop culture that crosses borders, and increasingly interracial relationships and the free movement of peoples across the world in a single generation. This is all possible thanks to modern technology. The corollary of this is that our diversity is not the result of our choice but rather of our limitations. It's not that technology is forcing us to do anything in particular (technological determinism). Rather, it's providing us the affordances to do what we would have done immediately could we have done it when the first homo sapiens were born in what would have been an organic globalism. To understand better, consider what would have developed organically if the first homo sapiens had wings to transport themselves freely over long distances.

    So I see artificial globalism as a highly positive development, albeit one that like any significant change in the status quo hurts some and leaves some behind. I see it as inevitably only in the sense that providing humans transportation and communications capabilities they previously lacked without changing their nature inevitably leads to globalism and the erasure of local cultures gradually. But I don't see the resistance as having a rational basis beyond apologetics. My suspicion is that it is ultimately grounded in emotionalism and a sense of discomfort that inevitably comes when change, along with some valid concerns that are best addressed by reforming the way globalism is occurring or are at least acceptable trade-offs to acquire the benefits that come with globalism. Basically, I see the resistance as mostly having rose colored glasses and as not seeing the implications that come with honestly acknowledging what we should do about the organic diversity that essentially arose as a result of our inability to freely travel except by foot or at best horse until pretty recently.

    None of this is meant to be an attack. I'm trying to help you get in my mind to see my perspective so you can better understand what it might take to help me understand your perspective and where I am right and where I am mistaken. Ideally, you'd be able to show me the specific points of agreement, if any, and disagreement.