3 ms·

That is a good argument against immigration - don't import cultures in quantities you can't assimilate when they are incompatible with the current culture. Also

That is a good argument against immigration - don't import cultures in quantities you can't assimilate when they are incompatible with the current culture. Also don't lose wars. Bad habit.

wahern 3y ago
The Arab dynasties during the Golden Age were multicultural; that's part of what made them so successful. But Islam in the Middle East had already turned away from natural philosophy before the Mongols, in a resolution to a religious debate that pre-existed the Golden Age. The Siege of Baghdad simply erased the institutional vestiges of the previous era. IOW, the end came from within.
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago
  Link?
  - wahern 3y ago
    The debate was between two rationalist schools of Sunni Islamic philosophy, Ash'arism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ash%27arism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ash%27arism) and Mu'tazilism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu%27tazilism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu%27tazilism). There was also a third non-rationalist school, Atharism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atharism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atharism). The winner was Ash'arism, which was considered a middle way. State sponsored Mu'tazilism had long ended before the Mongols arrived. As far as I understand, the critical theological questions as between the rationalist schools are this: 1) does god principally operate the universe through a system of natural laws, or does god directly will all aspects of the environment; and 2) to the extent god operates through natural laws, can study of those laws reveal divine truths[1]. I don't think Ash'arism denies natural laws--and may not even categorically reject any salience to faith in their study--but it disfavored and de-emphasized the importance of natural laws, significantly diminishing impetus for systematic support by the state, society, and religion for the study of natural philosophy. Institutional support for ethics, jurisprudence, logic, etc continued. Study of natural philosophy also continued, but it was more fragmented and shifted to the periphery of the Islamic world. Forms of Mu'tazilism survived at the periphery, for example in Al-Andalus (Moorish Spain). It wasn't purely a religious issue; it was also a secular cultural issue. Followers of Mu'tazilism (who were largely the political and religious elite) tended to see themselves and their empires as inheritors of Greek culture, at least in terms of esteem, which is one reason why they were so eager to preserve, study, and extend Greek texts. But most people had negative perceptions about the Greeks and Greek culture, and to the extent Greek culture was associated with materialism and natural philosophy, they tended to turn away from and look for alternatives to those areas of inquiry. [1] This is a big factor in the Galileo Affair, and why debate about astronomical models carried such weight and seriousness--because the ruling religious authorities were invested in the notion that divine truths were revealed through natural laws. Therefore, misunderstanding of natural laws invited heresy.
adr1an 3y ago
> That is a good argument against immigration - don't import cultures in quantities you can't assimilate when they are incompatible with the current culture. Also don't lose wars. Bad habit. // How can you compare invasions to inmigration? The argument doesn't hold. Furthemore, I fail to see the need to discuss inmigration at all. I feel you are just pushing your political agenda on a offtopic thread.
- ReptileMan 3y ago
  Because it doesn't matter the way non secular people appear in a society as long as they are there in sufficient quantity to change its mores.
croisillon 3y ago
the USA _is_ the result of imported cultures incompatible with the previous culture
vanderZwan 3y ago
Comparing a hostile invasion by a military horde on horseback to individuals moving to a country in hope of finding employment is certainly a take.
- LudwigNagasena 3y ago
  Looks appropriate for a take that compares the US to the Abbasid Caliphate and the Republican party to the Ilkhanate.
  - selimthegrim 3y ago
    https://poorlydrawnlines.com/comic/good-times/ https://poorlydrawnlines.com/comic/good-times/
throwbadubadu 3y ago
That's a nonsense apples to oranges comparison and stupidly xenophobic, sorry. (Especially for someone likely from a country purely built on immigration).

That is a good argument against immigration - don't import cultures in quantities you can't assimilate when they are incompatible with the current culture. Also don't lose wars. Bad habit.

wahern 3y ago

The Arab dynasties during the Golden Age were multicultural; that's part of what made them so successful. But Islam in the Middle East had already turned away from natural philosophy before the Mongols, in a resolution to a religious debate that pre-existed the Golden Age. The Siege of Baghdad simply erased the institutional vestiges of the previous era. IOW, the end came from within.

anonymouskimmer 3y ago
Link?
- wahern 3y ago
  The debate was between two rationalist schools of Sunni Islamic philosophy, Ash'arism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ash%27arism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ash%27arism) and Mu'tazilism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu%27tazilism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu%27tazilism). There was also a third non-rationalist school, Atharism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atharism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atharism). The winner was Ash'arism, which was considered a middle way. State sponsored Mu'tazilism had long ended before the Mongols arrived. As far as I understand, the critical theological questions as between the rationalist schools are this: 1) does god principally operate the universe through a system of natural laws, or does god directly will all aspects of the environment; and 2) to the extent god operates through natural laws, can study of those laws reveal divine truths[1]. I don't think Ash'arism denies natural laws--and may not even categorically reject any salience to faith in their study--but it disfavored and de-emphasized the importance of natural laws, significantly diminishing impetus for systematic support by the state, society, and religion for the study of natural philosophy. Institutional support for ethics, jurisprudence, logic, etc continued. Study of natural philosophy also continued, but it was more fragmented and shifted to the periphery of the Islamic world. Forms of Mu'tazilism survived at the periphery, for example in Al-Andalus (Moorish Spain). It wasn't purely a religious issue; it was also a secular cultural issue. Followers of Mu'tazilism (who were largely the political and religious elite) tended to see themselves and their empires as inheritors of Greek culture, at least in terms of esteem, which is one reason why they were so eager to preserve, study, and extend Greek texts. But most people had negative perceptions about the Greeks and Greek culture, and to the extent Greek culture was associated with materialism and natural philosophy, they tended to turn away from and look for alternatives to those areas of inquiry. [1] This is a big factor in the Galileo Affair, and why debate about astronomical models carried such weight and seriousness--because the ruling religious authorities were invested in the notion that divine truths were revealed through natural laws. Therefore, misunderstanding of natural laws invited heresy.

adr1an 3y ago

> That is a good argument against immigration - don't import cultures in quantities you can't assimilate when they are incompatible with the current culture. Also don't lose wars. Bad habit. // How can you compare invasions to inmigration? The argument doesn't hold. Furthemore, I fail to see the need to discuss inmigration at all. I feel you are just pushing your political agenda on a offtopic thread.

ReptileMan 3y ago
Because it doesn't matter the way non secular people appear in a society as long as they are there in sufficient quantity to change its mores.

croisillon 3y ago

the USA _is_ the result of imported cultures incompatible with the previous culture

vanderZwan 3y ago

Comparing a hostile invasion by a military horde on horseback to individuals moving to a country in hope of finding employment is certainly a take.

LudwigNagasena 3y ago
Looks appropriate for a take that compares the US to the Abbasid Caliphate and the Republican party to the Ilkhanate.
- selimthegrim 3y ago
  https://poorlydrawnlines.com/comic/good-times/ https://poorlydrawnlines.com/comic/good-times/

throwbadubadu 3y ago

That's a nonsense apples to oranges comparison and stupidly xenophobic, sorry. (Especially for someone likely from a country purely built on immigration).