Homogeneity theory of nation formation

[petrushka.googol]

 

 

The you should have no trouble providing examples to back this up.

 

Need I specify. Here are some examples.

 

1) Indian Independence from Britain. (political)

2) Germany splitting into East and West. (social / political)

3) Creation of Bangladesh. (economic)

4) Australia evolving as a nation. (language and ethnicity).

[swansont]

 

Need I specify. Here are some examples.

 

1) Indian Independence from Britain. (political)

2) Germany splitting into East and West. (social / political)

3) Creation of Bangladesh. (economic)

4) Australia evolving as a nation. (language and ethnicity).

 

Other than the psyche of wanting independence from the British, what was the common politics in India?

East and West Germany split because of occupation after the war. They didn't choose their political system, it was thrust upon them by the Soviets.

Bangladesh? Economic? They were one of the poorer countries.

The evolution of Australia — would that be the language and ethnicity of the aborigines or the British settlers and convicts?

[Gees]

Strange;

 

Of course it isn't. It may be the the least homogeneous identifier in existence (other than "human"). There are Irish-Americans, African-Americans, Japanese-Americans and on and on (America seems quite unusual in having this naming scheme for all these ethnic groups, presumably because it is so diverse). Oh, and let's not forget native Americans.

 

Please note the underlined homogeneous identifiers in your quote.

 

That only supports the OP if you think all Americans would make the same choice.

 

No. No. No. You are thinking like this is science. It would be absurd to "think that all Americans would make the same choice" -- we are people, not sheep. When I stated that my choices would seem to support the OP, I was talking about the criteria I would use to make the decision -- not the decision itself. You are looking at this idea backward.

 

This is why I don't open threads in this forum, because people here do not have a clue as to how to do philosophy or find truth. People seem to think that if they can find an exception or irregularity in the "theory", then they have proven it false. Bullshit. If we followed that line of thinking then it would be false that water puts out fire. Since barn fires start because the hay is moist, then water is required to start a fire, so it does not stop a fire. This is how one makes nonsense.

 

Short Lesson In Philosophy

 

What is it that causes the formation of nations? Well, we can probably come up with about a hundred different answers to that question and give examples for each of them. Then we can argue it until the end of time and find no resolution at all, while wasting our time and energy and ticking off a lot of people.

 

OR

 

We can look for a truth that relates to nations, because philosophy looks for truth. So what is the common truth? If we delete all of the people from one nation, will the nation still exist? No. The land will still exist, and the declarations and evidence of that nation will still exist, but the nation will not exist. Ergo, people make up a nation.

 

If we knew that the Earth was going to explode, so we took 10 people from each of 5 different nations and put them on a spaceship bound for a new planet, would the 50 people still have nationalities? Yes. After Earth blew up and all the nations came to an end, would the 50 people retain their nationalities? Yes. After they arrived on their new planet, would the 50 people produce families and then tell their children and grandchildren about Earth and their heritage? Yes. They would promote their history and culture, which after many generations would blend with other cultures, but also keep a distinction which would eventually lead to the grouping of peoples. We know this is true and people do this, because we have watched it happen over and over.

 

So the common truth in this thread is that people group under a common identity and call it a nation. This identify is part of each of the individual persons. The questions are what causes this grouping? What gives us identify? Anything else is irrelevant.

 

 

Swansont;

 

That's what needs to be demonstrated. Aside from geography, what grouping is required? The ones posited in the OP have not held up to scrutiny.

 

I have reviewed this thread and do not agree.

 

But does that psyche exist when the nation forms, or as a catalyst for it forming, or is that something that develops over time after the nation forms?

 

I would think that it is all three. The development of a nation and national identity is fluid and takes time to mature, so it goes through stages and processes.

 

Gee

[swansont]

 

I have reviewed this thread and do not agree.

 

Then you should have no trouble coming up with examples.

[Strange]

Strange;

 

 

Please note the underlined homogeneous identifiers in your quote.

Huh!? They are examples of how "american" is not a homogeneous identifier. Just because we have a word for a set does not make all members of the set the same. Do you think that "plants" counts as a homogeneous group simply because we have a name for it? (If so, then the OP's claim is true by definition; but also absolutely pointless.)

 

No. No. No. You are thinking like this is science.

Er, yes. Guess why that would be...

 

It would be absurd to "think that all Americans would make the same choice" -- we are people, not sheep. When I stated that my choices would seem to support the OP, I was talking about the criteria I would use to make the decision -- not the decision itself. You are looking at this idea backward.

Your contention was that the fact you would choose a particular destination proved that America was a homogeneous group. Now, obviously, not all individuals will make exactly the same choice (some might be married to someone from another country and would choose that as their destination, for example).

 

But your choice only supports the OP's position if most Americans, regardless of ethnic background, religion, language, political ideals, etc would also choose Canada.

 

In other words, a sample of 1 is not much use as evidence.

 

This is why I don't open threads in this forum, because people here do not have a clue as to how to do philosophy or find truth.

You mean people disagree with you? Ah, diddums.

 

People seem to think that if they can find an exception or irregularity in the "theory", then they have proven it false.

Yep.

 

Bullshit. If we followed that line of thinking then it would be false that water puts out fire. Since barn fires start because the hay is moist, then water is required to start a fire, so it does not stop a fire. This is how one makes nonsense.

Yep. In this case a literal straw man argument. Well done.

 

Short Lesson In Philosophy

 

What are your qualifications for lecturing us on philosophy?

Edited July 31, 2015 by Strange

[swansont]

People seem to think that if they can find an exception or irregularity in the "theory", then they have proven it false. Bullshit.

Basic logic. If one asserts that A—> B and I find a case where I have A and ~B, then the statement is not true.

 

What holds is that something can be generally true rather than universally true, but we have not had that concession from the OP.

 

If we followed that line of thinking then it would be false that water puts out fire. Since barn fires start because the hay is moist, then water is required to start a fire, so it does not stop a fire. This is how one makes nonsense.

 

Water does not put out all fires, so the claim that "Water puts out all fires" would be false. "Water puts out some fires" is closer to the truth, but really it's more that "a sufficient volume of water puts out some fires"

[petrushka.googol]

Basic logic. If one asserts that A—> B and I find a case where I have A and ~B, then the statement is not true.

 

What holds is that something can be generally true rather than universally true, but we have not had that concession from the OP.

 

 

 

Water does not put out all fires, so the claim that "Water puts out all fires" would be false. "Water puts out some fires" is closer to the truth, but really it's more that "a sufficient volume of water puts out some fires"

 

I have insinuated that from the inception of the thread...

[swansont]

 

I have insinuated that from the inception of the thread...

 

 

Not the way I have read things. But even within that caveat you haven't been able to provide many examples of this idea holding. Just a few isolated aspects. What seems to be a better description is that homogeneity is notable because it is rare.

[s1eep]

Is it true that an equal amount of water puts out an equal amount of fire?

 

Then it would be true to say, "an equal amount of water puts out any fire", but then thinking of the opposed response, "via some medium", may need to be added; the word could go on forever describing the whole truth, and the word itself is not much in comparison to the actual truth and it's flair above words. I may think that the eye is more directly relative to a grasp of water, than it is the most primal unit of water, because it's a water-form closer to us, or the tireless mouth to fire.

 

There are stages of life metamorphosis that occur within the wordless universe in unison. Evening is occurring simultaneously to morning, children, to grandparents, but life is imperfect - some people die, it is a supported imperfection. The closer water-form is the parent stage of "Water's" life metamorphosis for it supports and breeds life. There are an abundance of children living among grandparents, and the same occurs for water in a more primal form and water in a purer form.

Edited July 31, 2015 by s1eep

[petrushka.googol]

Nation building requires some form of social integration which is the theme of the OP.....

[swansont]

Nation building requires some form of social integration which is the theme of the OP.....

 

The OP makes a much stronger claim that there must be homogeneity.

[petrushka.googol]

 

The OP makes a much stronger claim that there must be homogeneity.

 

Close integration leads to homogeneity, does it not ?

[Strange]

 

Close integration leads to homogeneity, does it not ?

 

Clearly not. As we can see in India, for example. Or the USA. Or the UK. Or ... well, pretty much all modern countries.

Edited August 25, 2015 by Strange

[swansont]

 

Close integration leads to homogeneity, does it not ?

 

Even if that's true, "leading to" means it's not a prerequisite. Falsifying the thesis of the OP.

[petrushka.googol]

When visualizing the factors in identifying / building a nation the key is identifying the main traits of any nation, much like a search engine does.

 

India is essentially a Hindu nation, but that does not mean that other communities do not exist therein. It is just that the central theme of the nation is Hinduism.

 

It is like saying that all people in Arab countries are Arabs. This is not true. But as we all know, films and media capitalize on an Arab theme when describing Arabs. It is as irrational as saying that no Arabs wear jeans. (look at the images in popular media), they seem to suggest otherwise.But then they reflect popular (and essentially) dominant culture.

[John Cuthber]

As far as I can see, the only case of that being true is the the people of the world are from the world.

Because you can look at somewhere like England and point to communities" within it where the majority are (for example) black skinned people of Caribbean origin and have a culture that reflects that.

But that doesn't make that group a nation.

 

Where do you draw the lines round "nations"/

[petrushka.googol]

As far as I can see, the only case of that being true is the the people of the world are from the world.

Because you can look at somewhere like England and point to communities" within it where the majority are (for example) black skinned people of Caribbean origin and have a culture that reflects that.

But that doesn't make that group a nation.

 

Where do you draw the lines round "nations"/

 

To answer your query, at the largest possible perimeter. (as permitted by geography and socio-political constructs.).

 

Also I consider a nation as a logical entity, not just a physical one.

Edited August 29, 2015 by petrushka.googol