Philosophy in More Primitive Cultures

[Einherjar86]

I don't want to give off the wrong impression by using the word "primitive." I mean to imply cultures that live in a less technologically advanced society than we are all used to (I'm assuming anyone on this forum has access to a computer ). Now, for my question: I was wondering about the intellectual progress/advancement of these cultures. I'm taking an anthropology course at the moment, and I've been forced to try and think outside of my own cultural boundaries. I find several of these cultures that I have had to focus on to be very interesting and intellectually advanced cultures; but I seem to detect a lack of skepticism among them.

Philosophy is often traced to the Greeks, Socrates, Plato, and beyond. I know we all know and have at least heard of Kant, Nietzsche, Hume, and other philosophers of western society. There are also the eastern philosophies of Dharma, as well as the ideas of Confucius and Lao Tzu. Today we consider these philosophies commonplace, and (most) individuals continue to question their surroundings, purpose, beliefs, morality, etc.

While observing certain primitive societies, especially within tribal Africa, it seems that, while there is a distinct and structured view of the world-spirituality, economy, gender roles, etc.-there is little questioning of these beliefs. I often consider if a philosopher or intellectual member from western society entered one of these cultures and attempted to question the natives and offer opposing views of their belief systems (not try to prove them wrong or sway their minds; merely challenge them). It seems to me that he would be laughed at, ridiculed, or at worse threatened by the society he had entered. While there is still ridicule in this country (people are often stubborn when confronted with possible alternatives to their beliefs) there is still much debate and intellectual discussion as to the true nature of things. Why is this not so among smaller, primitive cultures? Why, in studying anthropology and other cultures, is there little doubt among these cultures as to their way of life?

 

[derek]

They're not as self centred as we are.

 

[Einherjar86]

Well, I'm not sure I see how being self-centered has anything to do with it. Could you explain more? I don't understand how questioning your beliefs can be construed as self-centered.

But if you're right, I think I'd rather be self-centered and intellectually doubtful.

 

[thereformant]

I have 2 thoughts on this. The first is that community groups are very small, so if say the percentage of naturally gifted philosphers is 1 in 1000 you would be unlikely to encounter one in a given tribal community.

Secondly when so much of your energy is put into things that we take for granted (like having enough food, clean water etc) anyone who spends a significant amount of time thinking is unlikely to survive very long, or be a prominent member of a community.

Even ancient philosophers in Greece / the far east lived in cities had a considerable amount of effectively leisure time as well as an established support network of schools, teachers and libraries.

The closest example I can think of is Ramanujan an Indian prodigy who had almost no formal training until he was "discovered" by some notable cambridge mathematicians I forget the names of.

 

[razoredge]

thereformant did a good job.

Myself, I dont know how to put it together in words but things like rabble rousers, rebels, oh contraire, no its not black its white are typically signs of someone having too much unfocused time on their hands, malcontent denial or seeking self importance they cant find unless they are able to turn things upside down.

 

[derek]

They're not as self centred as we are.

Consider any of the philosophers you mentioned. The nature of their enquiry was self centered, whether on themselves or the species. You'll either understand what I mean, or you won't. I can't elaborate on it if you are in the latter category.

 

[razoredge]

Because the desire to question or change a highly established belief system, laws, work ethic, gender roles, moral codes, you name it... is not unlike the one who refuses to accept someone saying the sky is blue on a clear day. Their motivation for this appears to be a form of self centered self indulged importance. Lets say, to make a big splash... "hey everybody did you see me"

 

[Einherjar86]

Consider any of the philosophers you mentioned. The nature of their enquiry was self centered, whether on themselves or the species. You'll either understand what I mean, or you won't. I can't elaborate on it if you are in the latter category.

Well, then I suppose I don't understand you. I understand that Descartes said "I think, therefore I am." I know that Nietzsche said "A thought comes when it wants, not when I want." But they intended their enquiries to be defined as a symbol for all humankind. People can identify with them. Someone can't be "self-centered" on a species. That's not the definition of self-centered. Within our species there are hundreds of cultures and belief systems, and millions of opposing personal views. The most famous philosophers are representative of those views and ideas.

Because the desire to question or change a highly established belief system, laws, work ethic, gender roles, moral codes, you name it... is not unlike the one who refuses to accept someone saying the sky is blue on a clear day. Their motivation for this appears to be a form of self centered self indulged importance. Lets say, to make a big splash... "hey everybody did you see me"

I suppose Derek can't explain further, but I don't agree that questioning things such as gender roles within a society is self-centered. You, razoredge, are very defined and decided in your beliefs regarding moral codes and laws and such (which is not a bad thing, necessarily). Therefore, the metaphor of the color of the sky seems legitimate to you. Others might not feel as certain. It's perfectly logical for people to question the origin of morals and laws, ethics and gender roles. It doesn't necessarily mean that they're self-centered attention whores.

 

[razoredge]

Maybe instead of the "questioning" as in for the sake of an opposed view, I look at all angles and sides of any issue and much easier come to see how things came to be. Im also more for exerting energy taking down the puppet masters than crying for petty personal rights, people have far to many rights in this country.

Nope, not everyone but many are just after some mark, rather than personal self improvement. Everyone questions but one is not supposed to sweat the little things. Why would one be bothered that these more secluded cultures go about their simplicity everyday happily ? Do you wish the chaos of the western culture on them ? We'd do better to learn from example in many instances. {not sure about the jumping from tall structures with vines around ones legs for rights to manhood but then again... lol )

 

[Einherjar86]

Maybe instead of the "questioning" as in for the sake of an opposed view, I look at all angles and sides of any issue and much easier come to see how things came to be. Im also more for exerting energy taking down the puppet masters than crying for petty personal rights, people have far to many rights in this country.

I don't mean any offense (which is impossible, considering what I'm about to say), but that's possibly the dumbest thing I've ever read.

"People have far too many rights in this country"... This is an almost unfathomable statement to me. What exactly do you mean by "too many" (i.e. what rights do you think we should have taken away)?

Nope, not everyone but many are just after some mark, rather than personal self improvement. Everyone questions but one is not supposed to sweat the little things. Why would one be bothered that these more secluded cultures go about their simplicity everyday happily ? Do you wish the chaos of the western culture on them ? We'd do better to learn from example in many instances. {not sure about the jumping from tall structures with vines around ones legs for rights to manhood but then again... lol )

If chaos and disorder is the price we pay for fucking questioning the world around us, then I'll pay that price any day.

What "little things" are you talking about exactly? And your final statement is part of the point I was trying to prove earlier. Rites of passage, gender roles in societies, risky behavior... why should none of this be questioned?

 

[razoredge]

Rights ? List is not worth my time with explainations involved. But what Im talking about is the pushing the boundarys of the rights by some, not all.

third paragraph - I wasnt aware that the world was such a bad place to live excluding the chaos. Its a fairly simply life riddled and contorted with chaos. Caused by too many people sweating the little things and not getting busy with the larger picture. I wont get into what I consider little things, this is up to individual evaluation by asking ones self "is this really a problem or should I focus elsewhere ? " So results will vary according to ones self servitude. Mine are all full population economic based which is more challenging then most.

Im not sure rights of passage is or was a bad thing, there is always some of that to various degrees anyhow. Work place, social groups, that yanking of the pelvis I found a bit bazaar, some hazings are bazaar some expected.

I do not see the issue with gender roles and this is all new to me, Im actually wondering where peopple are picking this up today. I dont see the discontentment with mature full function adults.

Risky behavior - perhaps increased as a product of the pushing the borders of rights, chaos and questioning, another form of rebellion ?

 

[Einherjar86]

I suppose I agree with you more after clarification. Your statement "people have far too many rights in this country" simply threw me off a bit. All I'm suggesting is that there are more rational ways to do things. However, I'm not advocating that we invade these cultures and enforce new methods of behavior. I'm only wondering why some cultures haven't begun questioning some of their practices. It seems to me that it is natural for human beings to ponder life and why things are the way they are. This should naturally lead to doubts about one's way of life. I'm not saying that any way of life is wrong or better (I'll keep my personal opinions here to myself). I'm only wondering why there is a lack of questioning in this area among some smaller, tribal cultures. Also, by "risky behavior" I actually meant, for an example, the administering of certain spells, concoctions, etc. by some tribes to a sick member, when in fact such things might in fact decrease his/her chances for survival (I probably should have used a different phrase). There have been cases where anthropologists tried to encourage tribes to offer their sick members certain drugs, but these tribes obviously refused. Why would no member of the tribe wonder, "Perhaps these 'drugs' would help our sick friend?" This is all I'm asking.

Lastly, razoredge: do you use homonyms in your posts just to fuck with people who are trying to read them, or are they all just mistakes?

 

[razoredge]

homonyms - had to look that one up. No, I have no idea what I write as far as "proper" english. Been out of school for 32 years and had little need for writing since, until the internet so I could come to fight with youngsters... lol. Not even sure where I have used a homonym unless its my lack of understanding things like the difference between they're and their. Not really true... they're is I believe "they are" and their is as in theirs personally... as I recall but I dont care, if it involves they... their is close enough for me. Sorry for any problems this caused more decent people like you, for the Mums out there that want to puff their chest out and do some mental masterbation intended to devalue my intellegence I could only offer them a Jack Black quote.

Anyhow, these cultures do not want to change and in many instances signs can be seen where Missionary and western infiltrations only brought those societies down or even made them non existant/extinct. Once again through chaos caused by upseting the solidified social structure.

 

[10293847]

I think primitive cultures are not questioned from within because there are no outside influences.

Even Western cultures did not change their traditions until there was an outside influence to inspire the change.

 

[derek]

You know according to some philosophical theories everything expressed here is intrinsically non-sensical. Language is by nature liquid, and so it hardly matter show Razoredge expresses himself.

 

[Blowtus]

Hardly matters to who or what?

In the end we all die and the universe implodes so none of this 'matters' in some impersonal sense.

 

[Einherjar86]

You know according to some philosophical theories everything expressed here is intrinsically non-sensical. Language is by nature liquid, and so it hardly matter show Razoredge expresses himself.

Well, then why the hell are any of us debating? We're just wasting our time.

 

[razoredge]

My point exactly

in the end none of this matters

so long as I can wear a dress and my wifes gets drunk and beats me once a day

 

[Einherjar86]

Such a copout. I don't give a fuck about "the end," I care about right now. Within this thread, I don't really care about what other philosophies have to say about language. Here, on these forums, language and words are symbols that represent greater meaning and purpose. When someone misspells a word or uses a homonym, the meaning of our communication becomes muddled and unclear. The way razoredge (and everyone else on this forum) types does matter, because our language is what legitimizes our existence.

The last four posts have been pointless and distracting.

I think primitive cultures are not questioned from within because there are no outside influences.

Even Western cultures did not change their traditions until there was an outside influence to inspire the change.

That's an interesting idea. So questioning one's culture is born out of interaction between different cultures. But if that's the case, then how come long term interaction between certain tribes and visiting anthropologists hasn't yielded these same results? When an anthropologist raises questions amongst tribal members, he or she is usually met with disdain or ridicule.

Also, what of the spread of religion, specifically Christianity? In Norway and Sweden the Cross was accepted rather peacefully. The Norwegian and Swedish kings were generally the first to accept this new religion, although some commoners did as well. However, in Finland Christianity had to be forced, mostly by the Swedish army. Finland was a tribal country, and had no established kingship like Norway and Sweden. Did the societal level of kings allow them more interaction with the crusaders, and thus provide them with a more intellectual, questioning viewpoint from which to decide? Or did they see the new religion merely as a means for more power? There was certainly still some resistance among the common folk. Was this because they were less intellectual/learned than their kings?

 

[10293847]

That's an interesting idea. So questioning one's culture is born out of interaction between different cultures. But if that's the case, then how come long term interaction between certain tribes and visiting anthropologists hasn't yielded these same results? When an anthropologist raises questions amongst tribal members, he or she is usually met with disdain or ridicule.

I would argue that any interaction, between one tribe and another, would yield some change. I think there are degrees to which we are speaking of here. It can be something as basic as sharing the same type of food, to something more extreme as sharing the same language.

Along with that, I think it's important to point out that certain peoples are, shall we say, more aggresive than others. Europeans who invaded the new world were (and I am being very general here) out to take over all they could. While other peoples, let's say native tribes in the Brazilian Rainforest, knew of eachothers' existence; Yet, whether it was due to extreme topographical issues or something else, were not as conquering, and chose to stay within their own grounds and respected the land of others.

And again, I generalize here. It's impossible to blanket all peoples into neat little boxes. But for arguments sake, I think the above is fairly accurate.