Borat

Guybrush

Dittohead
Hmm don't know. Look at us now. The Western Canon didn't really create Paradise on Earth did it? I mean texts are texts are texts. Relying on "high art" ideals doesn't mean a culture isn't completely decadent, either.

I have that song by whatzit Hot Chip in my head. "Over and Over"
Like a wise person once roughly said:
"Civilization is the varnish that shields man from barbarism." H'orsh'it (that would be "he or she or it") was quite right. In this case the concepts "civilization" and "culture" are for the most part interchangeable, I think, and therefore it follows that I think culture protects us humans from barbarism. However, I think the "arts" section of the cultural spectrum is one the least contributing factors in that, even though I think it has an indirect effect (keeping rulers content, enchanting the masses etc.). In other words, I believe "high arts" matter less than other parts of a civilization's culture when it comes to inoculation against barbarism, thence my critique of the quoted person using the Nazis' "high art" interest to discredit culture in general.
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
Like a wise person once roughly said:
"Civilization is the varnish that shields man from barbarism." H'orsh'it (that would be "he or she or it") was quite right. In this case the concepts "civilization" and "culture" are for the most part interchangeable, I think, and therefore it follows that I think culture protects us humans from barbarism.

That point of view has been used by the West to bracket off "savages" such as Aborigines, Africans, Polynesians, you name it, for hundreds of years. Just because it isn't "elevated" doesn't mean it isn't culture.
 

Guybrush

Dittohead
That point of view has been used by the West to bracket off "savages" such as Aborigines, Africans, Polynesians, you name it, for hundreds of years. Just because it isn't "elevated" doesn't mean it isn't culture.
That might be, but they were wrong: "Aborigines, Africans, Polynesians, you name it," all have distinct cultures. I define culture very broadly here (I include memes, for example).
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
nice! memes. haven't heard anyone use that in quite a while. point taken.
 

gek-opel

entered apprentice
I'm unsure as to how "culture" insulates us from "barbarism"- literally acting like barbarians, a classic bit of Roman propaganda, but which I am presuming to mean in this context acts of violence and genocide. I don't think there is any connection. Culture as art or culture as language or law or whatever. I'm not sure where the evidence lies, it seems utterly specious.
 
[Withdrawn]



This post withdrawn from circulation because of threats from the tabloid media, the moral majority, and fundamentalist loonies. [A claim also made by the tabloid media, the moral majority, and fundamentalist loonies.]
 
The Poverty of Logic

Throwing a spanner in the works here, but I don't believe that political and social issues like racism etc are in any way illuminated or understood (or challenged) by invoking classical, monotonic logic, an ultimately schizophrenic system (because its axioms are assumed to be totalising, whether true or false, when in fact they are always incomplete, and structurally so) with its reductivist, rigidly linear causal dogma, exposing it as philosophically, spiritually, and morally nihilistic.
----------------------------------------------------------------


Threats

Premise: An artist who is threatened as a result of his/her work withdraws that work from circulation.

Kubrick was threatened as a result of A Clockwork Orange.
Therefore Kubrick withdrew A Clockwork Orange from circulation.

Salmon Rushdie was threatened (the fatwa) as a result of The Satanic Verses.
Therefore Salmon Rushdie withdrew The Satanic Verses from circulation.

Logic has - seemingly - produced a schizophrenic, inconsistent result. In the first case, Kubrick withdrawing the film is retrospectively invoked to justify the premise in order to establish retrospective continuity; in the second case, Rushdie not withdrawing the book is retrospectively invoked to abandon the premise in order to establish retrospective continuity. Not only is the premise in doubt, as it must always be, but the logic is also redundant, as it must always be. Rushdie did not withdraw the book in spite of continuing serious threats, whereas (I believe) Kubrick withdrew the film in spite of the threats (many will dispute this, of course) filtering out. What cannot be known can only be believed ...


Racism

Further up-thread, K-punk also used some classical logic to highlight the absurdity of claiming that stereotypes not based on social actuality cannot be racist, when he wrote:

"The fact that it is in no way based on what Kazakhstan is really like is very far from being an excuse... That's what racism is.." and " this simply what racism has always been about - fantasies that bear no relation to any real culture." And then, on the basis of this axiom:

Here is the logic.

Something cannot be racist if it is not based on social reality. (your premiss)

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is not based on social reality.

Therefore The Protocols of the Elders of the Zion is not racist.

I suggest that either the first premiss be abandoned or you demonstrate how the conclusion does not follow. (Unless you think the second premiss is not true, of course.)


Again, logic in all its inherent schizophrenia can be similarly used to undermine K-punk's own argument and premise:

Here is the "logic."

Something (fantasies) is racist if it bears no relation to any real culture.

Teletubbies bears no relation to any real culture.

Therefore Teletubbies is racist.

With similar results.

Reason, morality and belief, not logic.
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
"Throwing a spanner in the works here, but I don't believe that political and social issues like racism etc are in any way illuminated or understood (or challenged) by invoking classical, monotonic logic, an ultimately schizophrenic system (because its axioms are assumed to be totalising, whether true or false, when in fact they are always incomplete, and structurally so) with its reductivist, rigidly linear causal dogma, exposing it as philosophically, spiritually, and morally nihilistic."
Can't argue with that.
 

UFO over easy

online mahjong
Further up-thread, K-punk also used some classical logic to highlight the absurdity of claiming that stereotypes not based on social actuality cannot be racist, when he wrote:

"The fact that it is in no way based on what Kazakhstan is really like is very far from being an excuse... That's what racism is.." and " this simply what racism has always been about - fantasies that bear no relation to any real culture." And then, on the basis of this axiom:

Here is the logic.

Something cannot be racist if it is not based on social reality. (your premiss)

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is not based on social reality.

Therefore The Protocols of the Elders of the Zion is not racist.

I suggest that either the first premiss be abandoned or you demonstrate how the conclusion does not follow. (Unless you think the second premiss is not true, of course.)


Again, logic in all its inherent schizophrenia can be similarly used to undermine K-punk's own argument and premise:

Here is the "logic."

Something (fantasies) is racist if it bears no relation to any real culture.

Teletubbies bears no relation to any real culture.

Therefore Teletubbies is racist.

With similar results.

Reason, morality and belief, not logic.

:) Although all you've really shown there is that there needs to be further qualification if you're going to sling around the term 'racist'. K-Punk wasn't asserting anything really. Rather than using logic to prove something he was just using it to undermine what I had said previously.

I'm still hoping K-Punk responds to my counter-argument..
 
Last edited:
N

nomadologist

Guest
I'm unsure as to how "culture" insulates us from "barbarism"- literally acting like barbarians, a classic bit of Roman propaganda, but which I am presuming to mean in this context acts of violence and genocide. I don't think there is any connection. Culture as art or culture as language or law or whatever. I'm not sure where the evidence lies, it seems utterly specious.

Nitpicking here, but Barbarism is of Greek origin. It's from the way they heard the languages of invading hordes--it all sounded like "barbarbar" to them. The Romans used the concept. Just always loved that word in Greek.
 

DigitalDjigit

Honky Tonk Woman
Can't argue with that.

Do you mean that "I can't argue with people who throw out logic because we have no common ground" or "I agree with you".

hundredmillionlifetimes; said:
Something (fantasies) is racist if it bears no relation to any real culture.

Teletubbies bears no relation to any real culture.

Therefore Teletubbies is racist.

With similar results.

The problem is that you have a blatantly false premise there. "If something bears no relation to any real culture therefore it is racist" is false. While the argument is sound it is invalid. So it's not a problem with logic.

K-punk used this device not to undermine logic through coming up with a ridiculous conclusion but to demonstrate the absurdity of one of the premises. You are doing the opposite. And you intentionally start with an absurd premise.
 
Do you mean that "I can't argue with people who throw out logic because we have no common ground" or "I agree with you".

Thats a very logical question.


The problem is that you have a blatantly false premise there. "If something bears no relation to any real culture therefore it is racist" is false. While the argument is sound it is invalid. So it's not a problem with logic.

Of course its false (hardly blatantly), or rather, problematic. And its not my premise ("Let's scapegoat the person who suggests that the premise might be false").

It is a problem with logic, which falsely imagines that it can construct an all-encompassing premise in order to prove logic's credibility.

K-punk used this device not to undermine logic through coming up with a ridiculous conclusion but to demonstrate the absurdity of one of the premises.

Yes, we all know that (or, at least, we should by now), as I pointed out in my post, when I said "K-punk also used some classical logic to highlight the absurdity of claiming that stereotypes not based on social actuality cannot be racist."


You are doing the opposite. And you intentionally start with an absurd premise.

I'm not doing the opposite, I'm drawing attention to the (contradictory) dangers of using this device (classical logic) for demonstrating anything ... But you're quite right about the intentionality.

And you intentionally start with an absurd premise

I intentionally (would you have preferred if I had done so absent-mindedly or under protest?) start with the premise that was proposed, which you are right to deem absurd, just as the other premise is equally absurd. Is Logic fantasising that there is some premise the absurdity of which it cannot demonstrate? Such a premise is its absurdity ...
 

D84

Well-known member
Threats

Premise: An artist who is threatened as a result of his/her work withdraws that work from circulation.

Kubrick was threatened as a result of A Clockwork Orange.
Therefore Kubrick withdrew A Clockwork Orange from circulation.

Salmon Rushdie was threatened (the fatwa) as a result of The Satanic Verses.
Therefore Salmon Rushdie withdrew The Satanic Verses from circulation.

I think that's called a false analogy: eg. the two situations are more different than they are similar.

Not sure how that's a critique of logic. I think someone who studies logical systems could run rings around these arguments. Logic isn't an end in itself, as far as I can tell, just another tool for understanding the world etc.

Anyway, I'm off to check out your links. Thanks!
 

D84

Well-known member
Hmm... none of it actually says that he withdrew the film because he thought it was immoral or "dangerous" as you seemed to suggest earlier on - in fact all the sources seem to suggest merely that he was sick of copping flack from every moral maniac in the UK, his home. Nor that he would never talk about it for shame etc.

Not that I'm keeping track of any score, mind you - we're having a discussion not a competition...
 

D84

Well-known member
The Simpsons you say? It all comes down to whether how dodgy you think the character of Apu really is. Quite dodgy I think is the answer.

You reckon? He seems quite a strong independent character. I also think he's a pretty neat depiction of a retail clerk (having been one myself) - his catch-phrase "thank you come again" could be the same for anyone who's worked in a shop...

As for his accent, Chief Wiggum has a funny voice too... funny nose too at that ;)
 
"The mathematical is, as you know, pure deduction. We always suppose that it contains no contradiction, but as you know the great mathematician Godel showed that it is impossible to demonstrate within a mathematical theory that this theory is noncontradictory. A mathematical truth, then, cannot force the non–contradiction of mathematics. For mathematical truth, the non–contradiction of the mathematical is the limiting point of the potency of mathematical truth, thus we will say then that non–contradiction is the unnamable of the mathematical. It is properly the real of the mathematical, for if a mathematical theory is contradictory, it is destroyed. It is nothing. So first, the Real of mathematical theory is noncontradiction, second, non–contradiction is the limit of the potency of mathematics, because within the theory we can't demonstrate that the theory is noncontradictory. Consequently, a reasonable ethic of mathematics is not to wish to force the point. If you have the temptation to force the point of non–contradiction, you destroy mathematical consistency itself. To accept the ethical is to accept that mathematical truth is never complete."---Alain Badiou, On The Truth-Process


I think that's called a false analogy: eg. the two situations are more different than they are similar.

Not within the terms of the formulation. You are appealing to truths outside the system. so setting up an infinite regress.

Not sure how that's a critique of logic. I think someone who studies logical systems could run rings around these arguments. Logic isn't an end in itself, as far as I can tell, just another tool for understanding the world etc.

Could someone run rings around these arguments? Not unless they refute the findings of the 20th century's leading mathematicians. Such a someone would rather be the first to defend them. I studied mathematical logic (via computer science), and indeed, all I'm doing here is simply reframing its findings, a refutation of Formalism, results that have been known and understood since Kurt Gödel's two incompleteness theorems (the still extraordinary and elegant On Formally Undecidable Propositions of Principia Mathematica and Related Systems) were presented in the 1930s [and developed/applied further by such as Turing, Church, and Penrose] - Gödel's theorem actually used the rules of formalism itself to demonstrate that the formalist project could never be achieved. [And this despite the fact that Gödel was a Platonist, not a pomo relativist].

Gödel demonstrated that within any given branch of mathematics, there would always be some propositions that couldn't be proven either true or false using the rules and axioms ... of that mathematical branch itself. You might be able to prove every conceivable statement about numbers within a system by going outside the system in order to come up with new rules and axioms, but by doing so you'll only create a larger system with its own unprovable statements. The implication is that all logical systems of any complexity are, by definition, incomplete; each of them contains, at any given time, more true statements than it can possibly prove according to its own defining set of rules.

He also demonstrated that it is impossible to establish the internal logical consistency of a very large class of deductive systems - elementary arithmetic, for example - unless one adopts principles of reasoning so complex that their internal consistency rapidly becomes as open to doubt as that of the systems themselves

And worse, attempts at formalism within the political and social domains leads to madness (schizophrenia) ...



Douglas Hofstadter provides another interesting angle:

"All consistent axiomatic formulations of number theory include undecidable propositions ...

Gödel showed that provability is a weaker notion than truth, no matter what axiom system is involved ...

How can you figure out if you are sane? ... Once you begin to question your own sanity, you get trapped in an ever-tighter vortex of self-fulfilling prophecies, though the process is by no means inevitable. Everyone knows that the insane interpret the world via their own peculiarly consistent logic; how can you tell if your own logic is "peculiar' or not, given that you have only your own logic to judge itself? I don't see any answer. I am reminded of Gödel's second theorem, which implies that the only versions of formal number theory which assert their own consistency are inconsistent.

The other metaphorical analogue to Gödel's Theorem which I find provocative suggests that ultimately, we cannot understand our own mind/brains ... Just as we cannot see our faces with our own eyes, is it not inconceivable to expect that we cannot mirror our complete mental structures in the symbols which carry them out? All the limitative theorems of mathematics and the theory of computation suggest that once the ability to represent your own structure has reached a certain critical point, that is the kiss of death: it guarantees that you can never represent yourself totally
."---Hofstadter, Gödel, Escher, Bach.

Now back to Borat!
 

D84

Well-known member
Not within the terms of the formulation. You are appealing to truths outside the system. so setting up an infinite regress.

Yes, but in fact the two situations are indeed very different.

What's wrong with the infinite regress again? I have/had my own ideas about that (it's not a bad thing). I'll need a reminder though...

And yeah, we should probably start a new thread... :)

You're still wrong in this one! :D
 

Guybrush

Dittohead
From yesterday's The Independent:

Baron Cohen comes out of character to defend Borat
By Arifa Akbar
Published: 17 November 2006
He is a comedian whose alter ego - a racist, sexist homophobe - has delighted many, appalled some and is selling out cinemas across Britain and America.

Now, after staying resolutely in boorish persona during previous interviews, Sacha Baron Cohen has spoken in depth about his motives in creating his comical anti-hero Borat. The journalist from Kazakhstan who sings anti-Semitic songs and refers to women as prostitutes was created "as a tool" to expose people's prejudices, he said.

The 35-year-old Jewish comedian from London has maintained a long silence over the controversy raised by Borat, whose extreme anti-Semitic remarks have earned censure both from the Kazakh government and from the Jewish community.

In one sketch from Baron Cohen's film Borat: Cultural Learnings of America For Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan, which premiered this month in London, Borat performs a song called "Throw the Jew Down the Well" in a country and western bar in Arizona.

In an interview with Rolling Stone, the comedian revealed he was a devout Jew, observing Sabbath and eating kosher foods, and he referred to the singing scene to defend his inflammatory comedy.

"Borat essentially works as a tool. By himself being anti-Semitic, he lets people lower their guard and expose their own prejudices, whether it's anti-Semitism or an acceptance of anti-Semitism. 'Throw the Jew Down the Well' was a very controversial sketch, and some members of the Jewish community thought it was actually going to encourage anti-Semitism.

"But to me it revealed something about that bar in Tuscon. And the question is: did it reveal that they were anti-Semitic? Perhaps. But maybe it just revealed that they were indifferent to anti-Semitism," he said.

Baron Cohen said the concept of "indifference towards anti-Semitism" had been informed by his study of the Holocaust while at Cambridge University, where he read history. "I remember, when I was in university, and there was this one major historian of the Third Reich, Ian Kershaw. And his quote was, 'The path to Auschwitz was paved with indifference.'

"I know it's not very funny being a comedian talking about the Holocaust, but I think it's an interesting idea that not everyone in Germany had to be a raving anti-Semite. They just had to be apathetic," he said.

He also talked of his astonishment at hearing that the Kazakh government was thinking of suing him over the offence caused by his comic alter ego, and stressed that the "joke is not on Kazakhstan".

"I was surprised, because I always had faith in the audience that they would realise that this was a fictitious country and the mere purpose of it was to allow people to bring out their own prejudices. And the reason we chose Kazakhstan was because it was a country that no one had heard anything about, so we could essentially play on stereotypes they might have about this ex-Soviet backwater. The joke is not on Kazakhstan. I think the joke is on people who can believe that the Kazakhstan that I describe can exist - who believe that there's a country where homosexuals wear blue hats and the women live in cages and they drink fermented horse urine and the age of consent has been raised to nine years old...

"I've been in a bizarre situation, where a country has declared me as its number one enemy. It's inherently a comic situation," he said.

While Borat has drawn much criticism from Kazakh ministers - the government took out a full page ad in The New York Times to promote their country at one stage - Erlan Idrissov, the Kazakhstan ambassador to Britain, admitted to finding some humour in the film.

Baron Cohen, who was born in Hammersmith to an affluent Orthodox Jewish family, is the second of three sons. He went to an independent school in Elstree, and Christ's College, Cambridge, and worked for the investment bank Goldman Sachs before starting his career in television.
 
Last edited:
Top