To begin this argument, we must first explore the concept of traditionalism itself. From my viewing of traditionalist anti-MGTOW videos it has always concerned me that the term itself has been used in fairly non-descript nebulous ways. The term seems to be used in a manner that appears to mold the meaning of the concept of traditionalism to fit the agenda of the speaker in the specific context the term is used. As such, I have yet to encounter a sufficient and complete accounting of what a traditionalist considers traditionalism. To remedy this situation let us attempt to build up some form of account ourselves and see where it leads. Can it not be said that traditionalism, whatever is may be, must, at least in a topical way, have something to do with traditions? Surely it can. Can it also be said that there are multiple traditions in existence? This too is true. Now, is it possible for there to be contradictory traditions? Namely, is it possible that one tradition makes an affirmative normative claim as to some behavior while another tradition makes the opposite claim? Indeed, this is possible. For example, there are cultures in which cannibalism is a traditional behavior while in other cultures the absence of cannibalism is traditional. Indeed, cannibalism can be seen as both traditional and non-traditional. So, from what we have said so far it must follow that there exist traditions which are mutually exclusive. Now, let us ask ourselves what a traditionalist is. Can it be said that a traditionalist is someone who defends tradition unqualified or someone who defends a particular tradition? Let us evaluate the first case in closer detail. If a traditionalist is someone who defends tradition unqualified, then it follows that he will assert the normative necessity of a behavior that has always been the case if such a precedent exists. In other words, if there is a tradition in relation to cannibalism, then the traditionalist will assert that the correct behavior is that of cannibalism. As we have previously demonstrated that there are cultures which have traditionally practiced cannibalism and other cultures which have traditionally not practiced cannibalism, the traditionalist would necessarily need to defend both traditions if the traditionalist is to be understood as one who defends tradition unqualified. However, such an interpretation would cause the traditionalist to fall into contradiction. One way to resolve this contradiction would be for such a traditionalist to relativize tradition to culture. If he does so, then such a traditionalist will be defending the thesis that a member of some culture ought to practice the traditional behaviors of that culture if a tradition exists governing a particular behavior. In this way, traditionalism would, in essence be absolute animosity to change of behavior over time. In other words, traditionalism would be little more that the defense of custom against any form of alteration. I suspect this is not the sort of traditionalism and this is not the sort of traditionalist we are dealing with in the MGTOW community. The second possibility of what a traditionalist is, as we said earlier, is someone who defends a particular tradition. This sort of traditionalist does not suffer from the earlier problem of contradictory traditions. In other words, the sort of traditionalism we are dealing with in the MGTOW community is the type that defends normative behaviors of a particular tradition that have always been the case with the intention that those behaviors never change.
Telling the truth has become a revolutionary act, so let us salute those who disclose the necessary facts.
3 Sept 2017
On Traditionalism - MGTOW
To begin this argument, we must first explore the concept of traditionalism itself. From my viewing of traditionalist anti-MGTOW videos it has always concerned me that the term itself has been used in fairly non-descript nebulous ways. The term seems to be used in a manner that appears to mold the meaning of the concept of traditionalism to fit the agenda of the speaker in the specific context the term is used. As such, I have yet to encounter a sufficient and complete accounting of what a traditionalist considers traditionalism. To remedy this situation let us attempt to build up some form of account ourselves and see where it leads. Can it not be said that traditionalism, whatever is may be, must, at least in a topical way, have something to do with traditions? Surely it can. Can it also be said that there are multiple traditions in existence? This too is true. Now, is it possible for there to be contradictory traditions? Namely, is it possible that one tradition makes an affirmative normative claim as to some behavior while another tradition makes the opposite claim? Indeed, this is possible. For example, there are cultures in which cannibalism is a traditional behavior while in other cultures the absence of cannibalism is traditional. Indeed, cannibalism can be seen as both traditional and non-traditional. So, from what we have said so far it must follow that there exist traditions which are mutually exclusive. Now, let us ask ourselves what a traditionalist is. Can it be said that a traditionalist is someone who defends tradition unqualified or someone who defends a particular tradition? Let us evaluate the first case in closer detail. If a traditionalist is someone who defends tradition unqualified, then it follows that he will assert the normative necessity of a behavior that has always been the case if such a precedent exists. In other words, if there is a tradition in relation to cannibalism, then the traditionalist will assert that the correct behavior is that of cannibalism. As we have previously demonstrated that there are cultures which have traditionally practiced cannibalism and other cultures which have traditionally not practiced cannibalism, the traditionalist would necessarily need to defend both traditions if the traditionalist is to be understood as one who defends tradition unqualified. However, such an interpretation would cause the traditionalist to fall into contradiction. One way to resolve this contradiction would be for such a traditionalist to relativize tradition to culture. If he does so, then such a traditionalist will be defending the thesis that a member of some culture ought to practice the traditional behaviors of that culture if a tradition exists governing a particular behavior. In this way, traditionalism would, in essence be absolute animosity to change of behavior over time. In other words, traditionalism would be little more that the defense of custom against any form of alteration. I suspect this is not the sort of traditionalism and this is not the sort of traditionalist we are dealing with in the MGTOW community. The second possibility of what a traditionalist is, as we said earlier, is someone who defends a particular tradition. This sort of traditionalist does not suffer from the earlier problem of contradictory traditions. In other words, the sort of traditionalism we are dealing with in the MGTOW community is the type that defends normative behaviors of a particular tradition that have always been the case with the intention that those behaviors never change.
No comments:
Post a Comment