The lack of credibility by scientistic esotericism

Anticipating the outrage and feelings of insult of some believers, let me foreclose (again) that I consider myself as a pragmatic relativist. My pondering in all kind of religions, philosophies and theories led me to the conclusion that simply nothing is true or false, right or wrong. There’s simply no (objective) reality out there to base any (universal) truth on. Thus, I’m no disciple of science, either. Heck, I consider science just as much of a belief than religions for example: It’s basic axioms in methods and theorems in theories are arbitrary presumptions – premises. However, this is where pragmatism comes in: Science has provided the most comprehensive and compelling concept for explaining this our world (in the West) so far, calmed down people’s worries and doubts and thus contributed the most to life’s highest values – may it be longevity, happiness or human progress (as I think is the basis for the prior).
I’m trying to understand every different concept for explaining the world. This attempt of course is limited and sometimes thwarted by my social imprint (which is of a Middle-European Protestant-Christian, rather Republican than liberal democratic kind). I see logical inconsistencies in the argumentation of people who on the one hand affirm the subjectivity of our consciousness and the important role of the human subconscious and on the other hand, claim to have got conscious of all their social imprints and to be able to transcend them. Such transcendence would not only require full objectivity but also full awareness of the subconscious. This is logically contradictory, I reckon. But again, such people may immunize their opinions by claiming that they have also transcended logic – which I must admit haven’t managed myself nor observed among great philosophers, animals or nature in general: Trial and error, learning by doing – life is doomed to be logic, it seems. Thus, such people rather appear like heretics in my eyes and out of different presumptions alone, must be excluded out of this discussion.
And nevertheless or just in fact, it’s such logical contradiction and the subsequent lack of credibility among certain alternative concepts of beliefs to science that I want to discuss at this point. Recently, a huge variety of rather new concepts of beliefs have come to my attention that try to merge spiritual ideas with scientific findings. The term “spiritual ideas” may not have explanatory sufficiency (as in the sense of mathematical sufficiency), but seems to hit the spot as the basic difference between such concepts of beliefs and science is that it assumes “non-materialistic”, thus spiritual factors in the universe that play a role in our life. Again, it’s important to notice that such beliefs do not assume that this might be materialistic aspects that just haven’t been discovered or proven by science, yet, but presume (and thus immunize the discussion) that this cannot be researched by scientific methods. “Only through your spirit you can explain consciousness”, I was told. Well, this reminded me of semantic linguistics where my friend told me that you cannot really explain scientifically the coordination between words and their empirical referents. Another common example is that there’s no way to explain with science why human beings have consciousness. On my behalf, however, this question is flawed because again, we analyze our consciousness from a subjective point, raise it over living being’s state of being and think that we’ve reached the peak of evolution. How the heck should we really know what we are, what we are thinking when our subconscious is so overwhelming? I rather favour the cyberpunkish conception that consciousness and identity is the result of an overflow of information that cannot be processed in time. In such a view, consciousness is not digital – existent or inexistent – but analog-dynamic: You can have more or less. On a sidenote, I don’t see any other motive in the general dichotomic conception of human beings on the one side and the rest of the nature of the other side than the “eternal” struggle of the human ego to be special. Dodge this!
So, we’re talking about concepts of beliefs that draw most of their ideas from spiritual and religious beliefs like Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism (Heck, most of those people don’t even know the source of both Buddhism and Hinduism!), Daoism, Shintoism, etc. General characteristics of these beliefs are that they exclude (monotheistic) deistic entities, stress on the human spirit and other polypolistic forces in nature. This renders the explanatory content rather flexible or differently put, ambiguous and vague.
I don’t see any logical inconsistency in those views. They’re perfectly fine in regard of their intrinsic premises, the argumentation and conclusions.
However, the bogus comes in when disciples (especially Western people) try to merge these ideas with science. By trying to fathom the limits of scientific explanatory power, in the present case, quantum physics, they try to build a bridge to spiritual concepts: Waves are no immaterial, thus spiritual. The logic is incredibly flawed. Why? Because science is built on materialistic premises! You cannot connect to line of argumentations that are built on different presumptions! Further, empiric science itself consciously excludes itself out of the whole wave and string theories because experiments have already proven that the very act of empirical analysis influences the object of investigation. (Personally, I also see that case in social sciences where descriptive and especially instrumental theories turn normative as their explanatory power influences the empirical referent more than the other way round. Jensen’s free cashflow theory might be a famous example. Personally, I’m studying on the case of corporate governance in Japan in general.) Thus, such disciples simply abuse the huge comprehensive and consistent body of findings, arguments and conclusions by science in order to prove their own ideas right – even though you cannot prove but only confirm or falsify theories of a humanistic approach!
But, why the heck would they want to merge those ideas with science anyway? There’s only one simple answer: They cannot belief them without having approved their own (socially imprinted) beliefs of Western science and norms! In other words, they’re still (unconsciously) trapped in their old beliefs – and haven’t even got aware of that! Thus, they do not only implicitly confirm their old Western beliefs but also betray their new-claimed spiritual ideas, deprive their credibility and create an illogical bastard of esotericism. That’s what esotericism is anyway.
Instead, those disciples should keep their hands of scientific findings and turning them into scientistic arguments, but instead should stick to their completely distinct premises. And if they want to proselytize – either because they need confirmation in their own beliefs by convincing others or because they want to make profit out of it – they shall argue the only valid way: with pragmatism. They shall foreclose – just as I did – that their ideas are also mere beliefs, not to be proven (scientifically), but to be believed, and argue that then– and only then – they would fulfill those aforementioned highest values even better than science does.

Why has Japan become a culture of materialism and ignorance?

Let me get straight to the point: Present-day Japan is promoting a lifestyle in materialistic ignorance. The question isn’t whether this is true – every initiate would agree anyway. It’s not a question about right or wrong, either, as there’s no “right” or even “optimal” way of lifestyle and it’s all about view, values and attitudes. There’s simply the question of why – why has Japan become like that?
To allays reservations about me forestalling the first two questions: First, of course, I’m talking about Japanese in general. And second, “materialistic ignorance” is not meant to be judgemental – at all. Both because of the bias of almost any present-day term as well as the high relevance of the topic, the second assertion may need some clarification: Ignorance shall not be confused with stupidity. Economists may think of “rational ignorance”, the state where it would be simply stupid to acquire more information since it wouldn’t pay off. And sociologists may think of the incredible judgemental embossement the “educated bourgeoisie” (in German: Bildungsbürgertum) has left on all these thoughts. You don’t need to watch modern movies like “Fight Club” to understand that “you need to loose everything before you can appreciate the least you gain”, but can start off right in the Bible where it’s written that “blessed are the poor in spirit because the heavens are theirs”. Having allaying this first concern about my own bias, I may introduce the two fundamental attitudes towards life that make rate “the Japanese way of life” completely different. The view and valuation of different kinds of needs and their satisfaction is crucial to the differences occurring.
On the one hand, there’s a simplistic, fundamental attitude towards life. This attitude stresses out basic needs and their satisfaction: Why caring about science and arts if you gain the best feelings from good food, deep sleep and well, intensive sex. Educated people in particular may agree that thinking rather leads to more worries than intellectual satisfaction: Either because you get more questions than answers or need to start to worry about losing your answers again. Critics may call this lifestyle hedonistic, supporters have already called it pragmatic. Anyway, the prioritization of basic needs also implies – and hopefully, will be consciously grasped as – a rather existentialistic, self-determined, maybe egocentric world view.
On the other hand, there’s an attitude towards life that combines utilitarian principles with the higher appreciation of more “sophisticated”, “distinguished” needs: Just according to Maslow’s pyramid, satisfaction in intellectual studies and self-fulfillment are considered as well as felt as more intensive – probably also in the awareness that they contribute to human development and therefore the chance of satisfying even more “sophisticated” needs. Please consider that I’m talking about development and not improvement as the first doesn’t need to make us any happier.
Having said that, let me also disclose that personally, I’m trying to commit myself rather to the second attitude towards life – not out of conviction but a sense of duty: Probably, I wouldn’t have been put in this privileged position both to take the time as well as the system-critical capabilities to asses these two views if my parents and ancestors wouldn’t have worked their asses off for me. Thus, if I want to grant the same insight to future generations, I may do best not to make them read this essay but to make them experience themselves – and this can only be ensured with enough resources gained now. Thus, both for human development as well as the opportunity to make the very conclusions here, I consider it as much more sustainable to choose the second way – and history seems to prove me right, too.
See? Going straight to the point has made me to go into details of details. However, in the end, you may see that the conclusions of this whole essay lie much closer to the universal attitudes explained above than you might have though. Also keep in mind my important distinction between reading and learning on the one hand and experiencing and understanding on the other.
Well then, the question is at hand: How come that the Japanese society has brought up such a short-sighted, ignorant materialistic lifestyle?
This certainly hasn’t always been like that! Just looking back before the two World Wars reveals a Japanese society craving for knowledge, leading discussions through all social strata and resulting in upheavals and movements that threatened the very locus of power. Think of the Meiji reformists and their principles or think of Buddhism. We need to consider that all these events and ideas may not be representative for the whole people of Japan, though. There’s the valid claim that Japan simply never showed such a lifestyle because most people couldn’t afford it! It’s only been in the last few decades that most Japanese have acquired enough wealth that they – or rather their children – could live out their real attitude towards life to the full extent.
However, instead of insinuating hedonism as a cultural basis, I rather would like to introduce another hypothesis: The economic development in the last fifty years hasn’t allowed such a lifestyle, but caused it in the first place! The economic success of Japan has cauterized Japanese culture. When Japan entered the period of high growth, every Japanese was able to get a job – however, despite the high and fast growth of the economy, Japanese people have never acquired the same living standard like in Europe for example: They normally spend 12 hours a day at work, get home exhausted, just to do the same thing the next day again. The economic success hasn’t freed them from their poverty and lack of need satisfaction but just locked them up in a new cage. Japanese employees don’t have spare time or power to care about politics, they don’t have spare time and power to think or do arts. All what it’s left for is some mindless shopping. Think it this way!
At some certain point, this development had become a self-enhancing process, of course. You may want to call it a vicious circle. A culture of political culture ceased, topics like philosophy and arts lost attention and this again had an impact on the socialization of upcoming generations which were born into a system of labour and some spare time for shopping. You can’t learn about political discourse in school. You need to try it out yourself. But are you supposed to do that if there’s cram school to be attended late night? The Japanese have started to run faster and faster in their hamster wheel and all their amenities were expelled until there was only the cold-iron wheel bars left they were clinging to. Japanese materialism isn’t an expression of hedonism, but a desperate escape from an underprivileged life.
Now, if this hypothesis should hold true, how are we supposed to solve things? There’s no use to call Japanese to come to their senses when there’s nothing but work that awaits them. You need to break the system itself, see and try whether a life less under the economic imperative holds more amenities. However, kept in fear of loss by the mass media, having never seen how things are different and still work in other countries, they lack the experience to compare. As extensive and effective the Japanese education system may be, it’s diametrically opposed to the concept of true understanding and insight.
As I mentioned in the introduction already, this conclusion is based on a rather strict conviction about learning and understanding: I’m a fierce opponent of monologue argumentation and explanation. In other words, I don’t think that anyone can gain more understanding (however, certainly more knowledge – but what the fuck is that supposed to be good for if you don’t really understand, grasp the problem and idea behind?) that lies beyond the personal, subjective view. That means that you cannot lead a political discussion representing both sides, that you cannot improve your argument by not receiving any input from someone else, someone else who’s thinking differently than you. You cannot fool your immanent you hiding behind every idea and argument of your own. It’s only in a true discourse with someone else where your thought, your opinion, your idea and your understanding can be enriched. And well, the truer and more direct this discourse is, the more effective! You cannot argue with a book and therefore, reading a book is the least insightful way of learning! How do you want to study, not to mention to understand a foreign country if you haven’t been there? The information is just too complex to be stored up on some pages – just like this essay by the way.
Just think of Japanese in holidays! They don’t try to live in the foreign country, try to get in contact with its people – no, they stick together in a group, follow their tour-guide and rape pictures from one sight after another. Captured, it’s in the box, ours now. This short moment saved for the rest of the life. There’s quite some despair shining through that materialism, isn’t there?
No, the best way to make Japanese aware of their situation is to actually make them see the world!

The whole discussion in the vault

oelsen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UY-ZrwFwLQg hahaha

Karakasa: Wer über Religion herzieht, ist ein impertinenter Vollidiot, der noch nicht kapiert hat, dass unser eigenes Dasein reine Glaubenssache ist. Ob du dich nun von einem Schöpfer geschaffen oder aus abermilliarden Atomen zusammengesetzt siehst - alles sind unüberprüfbare Konzepte, die uns einfach Antworten auf Fragen geben sollen, die uns unser lästiger Intellekt eingebrockt hat. Ein jahrtausendealtes Antwortmuster ins Lächerliche zu ziehen, zeigt nur, dass man das überhaupt nicht kapiert hat. Wer bestreitet, dass Wissenschaft im Kern Glaubenssache (Stichwort Theorem) ist, der ist so bescheuert wie ein Islamist
Und jetzt versucht nur, mich zu widerlegen. Ich weiss die klügsten Köpfe der jüngeren Geistesgeschichte hinter mir.

oelsen: nun denn: religion flies you into building, science on the moon – und jetzt? wir können über theologie streiten oder darüber, wie wir das mrsaproblem in den griff kriegen. egal. arguing on the internet...

Karakasa: Also das Christentum hat im Mittelalter ziemlich erfolgreich für soziale Ordnung gesorgt. Wenn du Wissenschaft mit Pragmatik rechtfertigen willst, soll mir das recht sein. Verzichte einfach auf den höheren Geltungsanspruch. Pragmatik hängt aber auch wieder von persönlichen oder zumindest intersubjektiven Prinzipien ab: Gewisse Leute wollen "in Würde" und damit ohne Medikamente oder Maschinen krepieren, andere nicht. Indirekt hast du mich ja nur bestätigt. :-p

oelsen: wenn höherer geltungsanspruch der verzicht auf irrationalität und hinterhältigen terror ist, dann habe ich diesen anspruch weiterhin :D

Karakasa: Es gibt keine Rationalität. Lies' mal Organisationstheorie. Behavioural Finance wäre auch ein interessanter Startpunkt. Und Augustinus' "gerechter Krieg" ist in der heutigen Politik determinierender also Nye & Keohayne's Institutionalismus. Wer das nicht einsieht, sollte nicht behaupten, einen wissenschaftlichen Standpunkt zu vertreten.

oelsen: hokuspokus. könnte ich den pfaff, den bischof und den papst abwählen wäre die sache halb so schlimm. wie gesagt, es geht um religion, nicht um glaube. […]

Karakasa: Die grossartige Grundidee der Wissenschaften (gerade wegen ihrer historischen Ursprüngen in den Naturwissenschaften) ist es, dass im Gegensatz zu anderen Weltbildern, namentlich Religionen, keine konkreten Grundprinzipien für die Anschauungen, sprich die Theorien, existieren sollten, sondern nur Prinzipien, Grundsätze, in der Methodik, also, wie man die Welt anschaut. Es ist auch diese Grundidee, auf der die empirischen Sozialwissenschaften und ihre deskripitven und instrumentellen Theorien fussen: Man behauptet nichts, was man nicht vorher gesehen hat. Nun gilt es jedoch - wiederum aus historischer Sicht - zu befinden, dass die meisten heute gängigen empirischen Untersuchungen und Theorien von westlichen (also im westlichen Kulturraum sozialisierten) Wissenschaftlern im westlichen Raum untersucht und zu solcher Konsistenz entwickelt worden sind, dass sie im Zeitpunkt der Ausdehnung und Vermittlung in andere Kulturräume, speziell den asiatischen, wenig aufnahme- und veränderungsbereit war. In der Folge sollte sich die Wissenschaft nicht mehr an den Tatsachen, sondern umgekehrt die Tatsachen an den Theorien orientieren. Hierbei entblösste sich die Empirie als stark in den Theorien befangen, als teilweise "self-fulfilling prophecy", indem sie den Untersuchungsgegenstand, asiatische Kulturen oder Wirtschaftssysteme, durch ihre eigene Untersuchung und mit dem übermächtigen ökonomischen, politischen und sozialen Apparat des Westens im Rücken selbst veränderte. Es ist dies, was Kritiker an westlichen Wissenschaften als "moderner Imperialismus" diffamieren. An dieser Stelle soll nicht von einem (beabsichtigten) Imperialismus der Wissenschaften gesprochen werden, sondern von einem Paradigma: Die westlichen Theorien sind zu raffiniert geworden, als dass sie allzu andersartige Tatsachen integrieren könnten. Dies muss oder kann sie auch fast nicht mehr, da mit der Globalisierung schon in vielen Bereichen eine "Verwestlichung" - gerade auch im Zuge der wissenschaftlichen Erforschung - stattgefunden hat. Damit hat sich die Wissenschaft aber selbst unbeabsichtigt auch den Anspruch einer höheren Geltungskraft als andere Glaubensmuster, etwa auch die Religionen, abgesprochen. Umgekehrt lässt sich diese Argumentation aufgrund des nachhaltigen Einflusses der westlichen Wissenschaften auf die verbliebenen andersartigen Referenzpunkte nicht beweisen. Sie erhebt aber auch keinen höheren Geltungsanspruch wie die Wissenschaft und will sich selbst immunisieren, sondern will als These verbleiben. So. Das ist meine Ansicht.

oelsen: ich weiss nicht, was an einer relativitätstheorie oder dem wienschen verschiebungsgesetz so imperialistisch sein sollte. oder der tatsache, dass ein gen X leute farbenblind macht, wenn es mutiert ist

Karakasa: Ich differenziere bereits zwischen Sozial- und Naturwissenschaften. Aber auch Naturwissenschaften könnten in ihren Ansprüchen hinterfragt werden: Könnte der Anziehungsfaktor g auf der anderen Seite der unförmigen Erde nicht anders sein? Die Farbenblindheit ist interessant, weil Farben in verschiedenen Sprachen ja anders konnotiert sind. Über Quantenphysik und Astronomie wollen wir gar nicht reden: Das ist reine Mutmassung auf Zahlenakrobatik. Man bedenke, dass Mathematik eine Geisteswissenschaft ist. Du denkst eben auch noch in den Gesetzen der Wissenschaft genauso wie ein gläubiger Christ nicht aus dem Grundkonzept des Schöpfers herausdenken kann.

oelsen: blrk. g ist überall anders, siehe mal in der wikipedia

Karakasa: Umso besser. :-p

oelsen: farben sind auf der ganzen welt gleich, weil die aminosäure dieselbe ist. es gibt zwar bevölkerungsgruppen, die andere haben (siehe tetrachromatopsie). farbnamen werden erfunden, weil sie praktisch sind

Karakasa: (Ich verstehe g als den Anziehungsfaktor, der der Erde zugeordnet ist, ja?)

oelsen: ja. der variiert je nach untergrund

Karakasa: Das wusste ich nicht. Ich dachte an die Unförmigkeit der Erdkugel. Aber das ist jetzt alles wieder nur wissenschaftlicher Wissensschwanzmessen. Tatsache ist, dass da nichts universell ist.

oelsen: eigentlich ist es kein schwanzmessen. du stellst eine frage und kannst sie verifizieren. das ist doch ansatzweise wissenschaft...
gretchenfrage: wie reagierst du, wenn jemand sagt "schwule sind krank, das steht so in der bibel?" du darfst a) nicht die bibel zitieren, weil sonst besserwisser/blasphemisch b) keine wissenschaftlichen erkenntnisse erwähnen, weil böse und so und c) keine philosophischen grundsätze der letzten 3000 jahre anführen, weil bibel hat sowieso recht

Karakasa: a)

oelsen: achsonein, das ist eine aufzählung. du darfst nichts der drei dinge tun...

Karakasa: Ich kann nur versuchen, mit einer system-intrinsischen Argumentation seine Ansicht zu widerlegen. Ein Argument einer anderen "Schule" ist in seinem Glaubenskonzept nicht akzeptabel, genauso wenig wie biblische Geschichten nichts in der Wissenschaft zu suchen haben - zumindest als Argument (gewiss aber als Untersuchungsgegenstand). Sollte der Ansatz über a) scheitern sind Schwule gemäss dem christlichen Glauben wirklich krank und seine Aussage denn richtig. Das gilt es zu respektieren - genauso wie er unsere andersartige Meinung zu akzeptieren hat.

oelsen: relativist!

Karakasa: Ich kann ihn nicht widerlegen, er nicht mich. Angesichts der Machtverhältnisse in der modernen Gesellschaft dürfte sich dieser christliche Zealot mit dieser Situation schon mehrmals abgefunden haben. Wir, die Wissenschaftsgläubigen aber nicht: Wir wollen zeigen, dass er Unrecht hat.
Fein. Wenn die Schlussfolgerung meiner Streitrede gegen den höheren Geltungsanspruch der Wissenschaft der Relativismus ist, so kann ich mich damit zufriedengeben. Ich bin davon überzeugt, dass dieser noch weitaus pragmatischer und damit effizienter ist als deiner. :-p Und wenn du das nicht akzeptieren kannst, spiel' doch nochmals "Bioshock" durch und frage dich, weshalb Andrew Ryan den Freitod wählt. Das ist pure Kritik an Ayn Rands Objektivismus!

oelsen: achjaklar, stell mich in die randecke

Karakasa: Keineswegs. Ich kontere deinen polemischen "Relativist!" mit etwas mehr Rhetorik meinerseits - oder versuche es zumindest.

oelsen: :)

Karakasa: Impliziert dieser denn nicht, dass du als radikaler Vertreter der Wissenschaft auch keinen Relativismus akzeptieren kannst, weil er indirekt den höchsten Geltungsanspruch der Wissenschaft untergräbt? Ist das nicht genauso missionarisch und zealotisch wie ein Zeuge Jehovas, der unbedingt den nächsten Christen rekrutieren will, um sich in seinen Ansichten bestätigt zu sehen? Oder der Schwule, der seine emotionalen oder sexuellen Präferenzen nicht für sich behalten kann, sondern demonstrativ auf die Barrikaden gehen und "Gay Pride!" schreien muss? Wer mich kennt, dürfte sich an meinen nonkonformen, absolutistischen Sprüchen schon genügend gestört haben. Ich bin also keineswegs ein diplomatischer Relativist der Eintracht wegen, sondern vielmehr aus Ernüchterung durch konsequente und eben unvoreingenommene Überlegung. Ich gestehe den Kreationisten nicht einen Geltungsanspruch zu, weil ich Menschen im Allgemeinen gern habe, oh nein!, sondern weil ich die Richtigkeit der Wissenschaft nicht beweisen kann.

oelsen: die konsequenz einer gesellschaftlichen relevanz solcher theorien ist eine schludrigkeit in den begriffen der welt, die uns umgibt. gerade heute, wo es darauf ankommt, bytes von watts zu unterscheiden, wo jeder eine verantwortung gegenbüer allen haben sollte, ist so etwas gefährlich. genauso, wie man bescheid wissen sollte in religiösen belangen, wer shia und wer sunni ist z.b. Kreationisten sehen sich selbst gerne als exklusiv auserwählt

Karakasa: Eben nicht. Du kannst nicht den Anspruch erheben, einfach mal mit deinen Standards die Welt zu eichen. Das ist wirklich imperialistisch! Damit implizierst du ja auch, dass du den Dialog mit diesen anderen Ansichten gar nicht willst oder einbeziehen kannst.Karakasa: Du denkst ja bereits in Bytes und Watts. Die denken in Suren und goldenen Zeitaltern!

oelsen: ich glaube, die meisten menschen auf dieser welt sind sich einig, was ein gutes leben ist. wenn sie aber durch ihre handlungen das nicht erreichen können, oder wenn sie gar dem ziel entgegenwirken, dann muss man das ihnen sagen. alles andere empfinde ich als fies.

Karakasa: Willst du jetzt mit Utilitarismus argumentieren? Vorher war es gerade noch Demokratie! Ein weiteres gutes Beispiel, dass Demokratie nicht unbedingt gerecht ist. Deshalb legt die Schweiz ja auch solchen Wert auf den Föderalismus.

oelsen: nein. mit alphabetisierung

Karakasa: Damit sie unsere Bücher lesen und in unserem Glauben sozialisiert werden?

oelsen: wieso denn? wenn einer gegen die wand fährt, dann sag ich es ihm. sowas nennt man nett.

Karakasa: Du verfängst dich immer mehr in meiner imperalistischen Unterstellung.

oelsen: genauso können sie uns ihre dinge mitteilen

Karakasa: Offensichtlich nicht, wenn du sie nur in Bytes und Watts sprechen lässt. Oder versuche du dich mal auf Japanisch zu rechtfertigen. Das wird dir schnell Schwierigkeiten bereiten.

oelsen: für mich ist es ganz einfach: ein fundi, der zuviele kinder macht und die umwelt totalvernichtet hat in diesem leben verloren; wir, die gott für tot erklären (jaja ich weiss, es ist anders), haben erst im nächsten verloren.

Karakasa: Vielleicht gewinnt er schon früher, wenn seine Kinder seine Rente sichern - und nicht deine. :-p Du weichst aus.

oelsen: nun denn, dafür sind alle enkel tot. doch, darum geht es. antworten zu finden, für dinge, die nicht unmittelbar klar sind.

Karakasa: Du hast schlichtwegs kein Argument, dass deinen Glauben, die Wissenschaft, über den ihrigen stellen kann. Akzeptier' es und werde von mir zum gleichen Fundamentalist wie im Nahen Osten abgestempelt. Naja, du hast noch einige Jahrzehnte Zeit, an einem guten Argument zu feilen, denke ich. Wenn du während all' dieser Zeit meinen Stempel ertragen kannst. Oder warum wollte Kant Gott mal nicht pauschal ausräumen? :-p Oder warum wollte Kant Gott mal nicht pauschal ausräumen? :-p

oelsen: wenn der dünger ausgeht, wird es sich zeigen, wessen gott zuerst tot ist...

Karakasa: Du hast ja nicht mal einer! Woran willst du dich klammern, wenn du nicht mal mehr an einem Hungertuch nagen kannst? Interessant auch, dass du das jetzt als Krieg der Glauben, als Glaubenskrieg, auffasst. Wann bläst du zum wissenschaftlichen Kreuzzug?

oelsen: wenn schon wissenschaftliche genuugtuung; wenn auch tödliche

Karakasa: Verstehst du nicht? Du willst Recht behalten. Ich versuche nur, keinem Recht zu geben. Was denkst du, wem von uns beiden zuerst die Puste ausgeht?

oelsen: dem, der früher schlafen gehen muss :D soweit ich das verstanden habe soll ich die klappe halten, weil sie in ihrem system recht haben. oder zumindest ordnung. dazu sage ich: dann müssen sie halt nicht hinhören.

Karakasa: Das wollen sie auch nicht! Du störst dich an ihrem Schwulengedresche. :-p

Is there any direct relation between rationality and pragmatics on the one hand and reason and ideology/ verity on the other hand?

Now I just addressed my issue with the general view on science to a second Japanese, notabene a student at Tôdai, and got immediate approvement right away for the second time. I felt both surprised and happy as I’ve talked to so many people in Switzerland and of other (Western) countries about it already that I felt like nobody would understand me. But there we go: Two Japanese (women) and both totally understand me. What am I referring to anyway? Well, my continuous sermon that science shouldn’t be considered – nor taught – as anything superior to any (other) religion. This especially goes for study courses at university. Let me explain this in (Swiss-) German terms as English ones have already got so much diluted – or simply come from a different point of view – that my argumentation gets clear: A “pupil” (“Schüler”) “learns” (“lernen”) different things in “school” (“Schule”) until he “graduates” (“mit einer Matur abschliessen”) before entering into “university” (“Universität”) and starting to “study” (“studieren”) as a “student” (“Student”). In (Swiss-) German, the terms are exchangeable. A pupil doesn’t study, nor is he a student. This term is reserved to students of universities. A Swiss-German pupil doesn’t simply graduate after high school, but gets a “Matur”, thus becoming mature. By the way, Japanese doesn’t differentiate between “learn” and “study” at all, but makes huge differentiations when it comes to learning in childhood, separating learning tacit knowledge (“narau”) from explicit knowledge (“manabu”) and so on. This all clearly leads to what university is all about in the German concept: A place where mature, independent and knowledgeable students start to think of their own, analyzing things in their own way and reinterpreting them or invent new things. American and especially Japanese university concepts – also more and more intruding into our German area with the bachelor/ master system don’t follow this principle. In fact, it’s just an extended school where you read some more textbooks and learn them by mind, not realizing that those are all theories, explicitly based on certain assumptions and to be questioned. University is supposed to point out this ambivalence and arbitrariness to their students and help them to question them – by teaching and focusing methods, even questioning those! But no, we end up learning some more “facts” – and believe in them. Religion is invention. Science is right or true. The more we learn the more intelligent we become. Look at all those self-confident, proud students with their books under their arms, boasting about how many philosophers’ and scientists’ papers they’ve already read, how much they understand about the world! They think to swallow truth and question themselves and their “studies” only when their textbooks explicitly tells them so. How wrong! How fallible! How immature!
And now I lament about that to that Japanese student who simply shrugs her shoulders and states that of course, it would be all invented but as long as everybody believes in it … There we go. Pragmatics at its core! How impressive! And that natural, that unconcerned like that’s the most obvious thing to her. I didn’t get that impression from any of my Western discussion partners. They always claimed a higher value for science, like intersubjectivity, traceability or a higher meaning of the underlying logic. No, she justifies the importance of science with mere pragmatics. You could still believe and explain everything with the old gods – it wouldn’t change much but that we’d rely on some fewer tools and would be ruled in more apparent ways. Why does the common Westerner wants or simply claims a higher value for science anyway? I couldn’t find any other answer but the same for religion: to proof himself right. To confirm his beliefs in order to be at ease. He doesn’t want to believe in the wrong thing out of conformity. He claims a higher standard. And even this makes him worse off: The truth is the highest value.
And this led me to my second big idea I’m working out these days: Westerners are more reasonable, Asians more rational. Again, I need to resort on German terms as the English ones are diluted while Japanese doesn’t make any difference at all: Reason has become the highest virtue in Western culture since the enlightment at the latest, though humanism clearly evolves around it already. (Take Erasmus as an example: “Cives mundi omnes sumus.” Note the plural.) Man tries to transcend, excel (and thus highly virtuous) himself to gain a new and higher level of in-“sight”, to become (more) objective, think beyond his short-term personal needs and interests, even beyond his death and thus will be able to do good for everyone. It’s no coincidence that reason also means the explanatory factor in logic but exactly therefore, it has become very diluted and overused in our today’s causally orientated (“kausalorientiert”), logical world. The German word “Vernunft” clearly and only means that since the days of Kant at the latest, not being ambivalent. On the other hand, rationality is about the ability to discern, abstract and interpret things in a way which finally serve your personal needs and interests the best. It’s what makes one egoistic being directly surpass another gaining an advantage over the other one.
Apparently, these two principles can easily be attributed to the notorious differentiation in political philosophy between “public” and “private” area, between “business” and “economics”, between “economy” and “state”. Both the republican and the liberal point of view are based on this differentiation, though the republican system clearly wants every single private person achieve that high virtue of being “reasonable” as well, ultimately becoming a citizen.
Although, this already hints at the problem of Asian cultures and democracy, the Asian perception may be even more unilateral: Not only can’t you expect private persons to be reasonable (as Hobbes thought, too: “Homo hominis lupus est.” Note the singular.) but you can’t expect the same thing of a state consisting of private actors! In short, there’s no reason – and that gets accepted! Thus, in case of Japan, it isn’t astounding that the democratic system is very liberal, asking few political decisions by its people (not citizens), but that it’s also highly “liberalized” in terms of run by several political cliques housed in one single party and deeply interconnected with private industry. The government is just like another business taking care of the people. Now of course, this goes completely against the “founding fathers” of the modern Japanese state, the shishi and rebellious bushi of the Bakumatsu- and Meiji-period who wanted Japan to outshine every other country and thus highly nationalistic. But was that really ideology? Didn’t Saigo Takamori fight out of loyalty to his Satsuma-daimyo? Didn’t most of all Genrô later spent most of their forces to both increase their power and make a name of themselves? There’s no proof for such a altruistic, ideological way of thinking like Enlightment philosophers did who didn’t even take over political posts in most cases. The same goes for those notorious Japanese managers who are supposed to act in the best will of their company. What’s their company anyway? Only the employees? Their families, too? What about the whole city (like in case of Toyota)? Or maybe whole Japan after all? What about their foreign subsidiaries? Again, there’s no proof, in this case not even a justified limit for altruistic behaviour and it’s easy to think that they act in very opportunistic ways, maybe restrained by peers or risk adversity preventing to overdue themselves as they wouldn’t find any other job or had to start at the bottom-line again.
Now, my question is: If this all held a certain plausibility, could there be drawn certain logical connections between the two different concepts in Western and Asian cultures? Doesn’t rationality only allow pragmatism anyway? Doesn’t reason call for truth after all? What do you want to base your whole call for higher values on otherwise? Just think of how much this thesis could actually explain! Think of the crusades, of enlightment, of terrorism in the West! Now think of lack of dogmatic religions, the close connection between state religion and emperorship in China, the ambivalent and vague conception of Shintô in Asia!
What do I want from you after all? I want you to question all this, not to only to getter better insight, close to the “facts”, but simply to make collaboration and coexistence with those different cultures easier as well.