There are countless other cultural traditions, considered 'harmless' and beneficial such as Christmas which I am sure many here indulge. Can't stand that rubbish. I am not against partying but why have it over some stupid thing like that, — unimportant

Christmas used to be good. The spirit and the season were different. Then retail stores took over the tradition and now Christmas is about spending.

Christmas used to be good. The spirit and the season were different. Then retail stores took over the tradition and now Christmas is about spending. — L'éléphant

Interesting. And not unnoticed! However, does it not take two to tango? The average person does, or at least desires to, hold or perhaps be invited to, feasts essentially. And giving gifts is a form of thanksgiving and charity that surely has a place in society. Both these things require, well, purchasing what one does not generally have lying around. Not everyone is a farmer who owns cattle, pigs, chickens, and such they can slaughter by hand and then invite friends, family, and neighbors over. Not everyone has the skill or time to create handmade things that have value and utility (that would actually be appreciated by the person beyond the politeness of appreciating effort, especially in the modern age). So, people generally have to buy things from those who do, no? Is there something inherently wrong with that, or better yet is there some realistic alternative that would fit the majority of people regardless of their widely different life circumstances? :chin:

I'm sure there are many people who choose to "opt out" of "commercialism", specifically on holidays. Good for them. But gift-giving in and of itself, at least once a year, perhaps to commemorate a religious story of such, or perhaps just to do because "it is better to give than receive" or simply because yes people, especially kids, do enjoy receiving new and useful things, surely isn't immoral or otherwise something civilization and society would be better off without? Sure, the businessmen will find a way to turn anything honest into a way to make more money. Just as the moral and pious will find a way to turn anything negative into something to be grateful for. Two different people, same ideologies.

A very interesting topic to ponder.

Basically, some empirical data suggests that our ancestors traditionally had a tail. Let's bring it back?

Traditionalism, rationalism, and other -isms, in my opinion, are always yet another attempt to bring order to the absurd. After all, it's much more comfortable to live with the idea that at the core of everything (the world around us) there's something—a purpose, a meaning, a purpose. When you proclaim communism, you discard traditionalism. Don't you think that nothing will fundamentally change? I'm referring to the replacement of one "belief" with another.

It's also worth noting that in recent years, traditionalism has indeed become very popular worldwide. This includes stuffing oneself into medieval costumes, forced celebration of holidays, ethnomusic, and so on. I see the answer in the human desire to find at least some kind of connection (especially something time-tested) in an era of blurring, deconstruction, and denial of everything. Traditionalists simply see the modern disappearance of all identity as an existential challenge for humanity itself.

Traditionalists may be called fools, but very soon, when our advanced societies enter a gradual decline due to our desire to erode all identity and tradition, we will see others rise up—with beards and tambourines—and rule.

Why do many people belive the appeal to tradition is some inviolable trump card?

And whence do you get your cards, sir? From the future?

I think it’s reasonable to challenge arguments from tradition. If someone says something is a matter of tradition, I think the first response should be to question it. But that’s just a personal preference. Misogyny, homophobia, slavery, and many other bigotries and harmful practices are traditional. The defence that a group has always done something a certain way is not a definitive justification. And the question might be, “Whose tradition?” Is it tradition for the nobility to exploit peasants and does this make it right? Is democracy and liberalism a tradition? I’m sure many of the people who defend tradition may not be so enthusiastic about those two institutions.

When does something become a tradition and is there any agreement on how it works? — Tom Storm

This is a nice summation that gets at what I was aiming for which seems to have been glossed over in most replies I have so far.

Most respondents seem to answer as if I am attacking tradition 'just because'. The point is that heinous acts through history have been perpetrated in the name of tradition. T Clark defends hunting with his family from an typically anthropocentric perspective because it serves him and his own in group, with no regard for the needless killing of animals for one's own fun.

Why can't he and his family enjoy a board game around the fire instead?

Does the act of killing some other creature enhance the fun and togetherness? that would be a rather chilling and bloodthirsty claim to stand by.

As per the slavery example, it could be equally justified that the family is brought together with some good wholesome corralling of savage negroes to be auctioned at market.

It is about questioning what is held as traditional and asking 'can we do better'?

I do agree tradition, falling under culture can also be very beneficial. On the opposite side I chagrin the loss of culture to the throwaway society. In my opinion it is about separating the wheat from the chaff which comes from well considered analysis of these traditions and not holding any particular one as out of bounds because 'tradition'.

And whence do you get your cards, sir? From the future? — unenlightened

My post above I think clears that up on my position.

The Christmas vs Hunting examples are, coincidentally and unintentionally when I wrote the post, good contrasting examples as you note here.

While I do not personally favor Christmas, and am one of those 'opt out' people alluded to above, as it is generally harmless.

On the other hand killing animals for fun and sport when the participants could get their jollies in a thousand other ways is needless suffering for innocent animals.

I actually do not think the consumerist behemoth of Christmas - which is what I take issue with, not the original festive season before all this bloat was added - is harmless however I think that is a lesser evil than killing for fun.

We can agree generally it is conisdered right not to kill people, but not just because the bible says so. We can evaluate that it is wrong to kill as killing is wrong for whatever humanitarian reasons we choose. The bible just happens to agree. — unimportant

But the Bible is an inarguable moral guide. The latter (or, 'other') is amorphous and often disagreed with (hell, often killing is justified by the Bible, but that's another matter lol).

Most respondents seem to answer as if I am attacking tradition 'just because'. The point is that heinous acts through history have been perpetrated in the name of tradition. T Clark defends hunting with his family from an typically anthropocentric perspective because it serves him and his own in group, with no regard for the needless killing of animals for one's own fun.

Why can't he and his family enjoy a board game around the fire instead?

Does the act of killing some other creature enhance the fun and togetherness? that would be a rather chilling and bloodthirsty claim to stand by. — unimportant

While I cannot answer for @T Clark, I can say that, in general, all of the examples listed on this thread so far, including hunting, have many reasons, varying in "validity" based on perspective of who's hearing them, beyond "just because [it's tradition]." Example, Christmas is often practiced under the context of deep religious conviction. That's nice you don't believe in my religion, but with all due respect, I believe one will be met with a sentiment along the lines of "kick rocks." :razz:

Similar to hunting. Not only has the entirety of humanity and their ancestors, including you and yours' survival solely thanks to the ancient practice, science proves there are dozens of essential vitamins and minerals found only in meat-based diets. Sure maybe in the past 50 years one can take a vitamin pill to adequately supplement these in lieu of such, but that's hardly the point. The body seems to be "naturally evolved" to eat meat and evolution is indisputably linked to such function. Those are all plenty of reasons beyond simple "appeal to tradition" or "just because." To name a few.

Furthermore, I strongly suggest you watch a Nature documentary. This falsehood of a "peaceful system" with all the animals singing around a campfire together having a peaceful time that all of a sudden is just shattered by @T Clark and his rifle because he wants to eat, is... well, just not true. Animals kill, maim, and eat one another all day and all the time. Quite horrifically, really. Point being, it's not like we're introducing some unspeakable horror into an otherwise peaceful environment.

If you don't believe in something, you have a right to abstain from it, and I doubt there's a single person alive who would want anything more but for you to do precisely that.

Over-hunting is a documented concern, however, yes. What goes on behind the scenes to get even the humblest of breakfast sandwiches is enough to sadden a person, admittedly.

When I declare a communist/anarchist state I will call the public holidays by generic names such as 'festivity day x3827.5'. — unimportant

You should look into modern day anarchist culture, they've got their own holidays but they relate to anarchist history, not festivus

T Clark and his rifle — Outlander

Shotgun, mostly.

This is a nice summation that gets at what I was aiming for which seems to have been glossed over in most replies I have so far. — unimportant

I didn't notice anyone glossing over @Tom Storm's point. I don't think I did. I acknowledged that an appeal to tradition is not what you call an inviolable trump card, but it can be a valid argument.

T Clark defends hunting with his family from an typically anthropocentric perspective because it serves him and his own in group, with no regard for the needless killing of animals for one's own fun. — unimportant

I'm human. How--why--would I have a perspective that isn't anthropocentric. I could make a good argument that hunting and eating meat are acceptable practices, although that is not the point I made. I'm not interested in making it here. For what it's worth, we ate what we killed.

Does the act of killing some other creature enhance the fun and togetherness? that would be a rather chilling and bloodthirsty claim to stand by. — unimportant

I have fond memories of hunting, although I didn't really enjoy it much when I was a kid. We were mostly the mules--putting decoys out in the Chesapeake Bay with water blowing up over our chest waders with temperatures around freezing at dawn. That's why I don't do it anymore. That being said, why do you get a say in what I find enjoyable. The question isn't whether or not it is enjoyable, but whether it is justifiable.

It is about questioning what is held as traditional and asking 'can we do better'? — unimportant

I have no problem with that, although I don't trust you to be the person who decides what is better and what is not.

In my opinion it is about separating the wheat from the chaff which comes from well considered analysis of these traditions and not holding any particular one as out of bounds because 'tradition'. — unimportant

Again, I don't trust you to make that kind of decision for me. It's a social and political decision. As such, different arguments are considered and decisions are made. You get your say.

I think you highlight something important about alternatives. It seems like these questions about social practices are sometimes framed in an all-or-nothing manner when there are other alternatives. If there is an alternative that keeps much of the tradition (that which is good) while excluding what is immoral, then that alternative is likely the best balance of reasons.

For instance, here in Sweden, we have a pastry that used to be called "n-word balls" in a translation from Swedish. Many invoked tradition to preserve the name. However, one can coherently be against calling the pastry something that includes a slur without having to abandon the pastry and its role in Swedish culture. It can still be at the fika table.

For instance, here in Sweden, we have a pastry that used to be called "n-word balls" in a translation from Swedish. Many invoked tradition to preserve the name. However, one can coherently be against calling the pastry something that includes a slur without having to abandon the pastry and its role in Swedish culture. It can still be at the fika table. — GazingGecko

To be fair the word for "black" in multiple languages is 90% similar to the slur, which is also the name of a country. It's literally just the word for a color (and an actual country). People are just idiots. But I suppose that needs to accounted for in, basically everything these days.

Why are you so concerned with what other people do? Is someone holding you at gunpoint until you go on a fox hunt or celebrate Christmas with them? No? Then don't worry about what other people do. — Outlander

If some culture has a tradition of whale-hunting, should the global community allow that? Should people not care that a magnificent creature like a whale is being killed? I'm not losing sleep over it, but there are some who are incensed by it, and I understand why they would care.

If some culture has a tradition of whale-hunting, should the global community allow that? — RogueAI

What is a culture? Cultures do change. How long has it been prevalent? What was it rooted in? There's a difference between killing for sustenance and killing for sport. Some societies and civilizations were forced to eat rats or dogs for survival after either over-hunting, natural changes in climate, or perhaps conflict and conquest. In some religions the lighting of a Menorah was to honor those before who had to make do with very little. Not quite a perfect analogy since nothing is being killed, but the concept behind remembering what those before us had to live like and the sacrifices they paid is fairly relevant to what considers a cultural practice, perhaps.

As to the "global community" (mob rule) that's a socio-political concept that has impossibly-divergent meanings to each and every individual.

Should people not care that a magnificent creature like a whale is being killed? — RogueAI

Why is it magnificent? Do you have any idea how advanced a microscopic "water bear" is? It can literally survive in space and in lava. How is that not magnificent? Oh, because we as physical beings have "size bias." It's where the word "king size" comes from (versus "fun size", because smaller people get taken advantage of i.e. are toyed with and are "abused for fun", get it yet?) Everyone wants a "big" house because it's safe. Everyone wants a "big" serving, because it's healthier and prevents you from starving. We like what is large because it reminds us simultaneously how small we are yet how allegedly superior we are in our own minds.

And what about ants? They can lift 27 times their own size. To my knowledge, a whale can barely tow its own weight, and quite slowly at that.

Whales are neat, yes. They should be (and are) protected.

I'm not losing sleep over it, but there are some who are incensed by it, and I understand why they would care. — RogueAI

Sure. Plenty of nations are going over generally established carbon output limits. What are they supposed to do, start killing civilians so there's less need to produce? People love to call one another out. I'm sure if something gets bad to the point of existential concern, it will be called out by all with a voice (and plenty without). :wink:

There is the old idea of "Chesterton's Fence:"

There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”

I get the feeling that a lot of the modern reaction in favor of "tradition" is really just a reaction against the open-ended push towards an amorphously defined "progress." Often, "tradition" is not understood as any sort of particular intellectual tradition or philosophy or aesthetic, but it rather a sort of garb for identity politics. It is thus defined in terms of what it is against. You can see this in how heavily modern traditionalist movements tend to rely on aesthetics over substantial thought. And on the opposition to "progress" Chesterton has another point:

Suppose that a great commotion arises in the street about something, let us say a lamp-post, which many influential persons desire to pull down. A grey-clad monk, who is the spirit of the Middle Ages, is approached upon the matter, and begins to say, in the arid manner of the Schoolmen, “Let us first of all consider, my brethren, the value of Light. If Light be in itself good—” At this point he is somewhat excusably knocked down. All the people make a rush for the lamp-post, the lamp-post is down in ten minutes, and they go about congratulating each other on their un-mediaeval practicality. But as things go on they do not work out so easily. Some people have pulled the lamp-post down because they wanted the electric light; some because they wanted old iron; some because they wanted darkness, because their deeds were evil. Some thought it not enough of a lamp-post, some too much; some acted because they wanted to smash municipal machinery; some because they wanted to smash something. And there is war in the night, no man knowing whom he strikes. So, gradually and inevitably, to-day, to-morrow, or the next day, there comes back the conviction that the monk was right after all, and that all depends on what is the philosophy of Light. Only what we might have discussed under the gas-lamp, we now must discuss in the dark.

This is not to say there aren't deep, coherent strains in appeals to "tradition." It's just that they are usually marginal, in part because most "traditions" are not (easily) compatible with mass politics and the sort of consumer culture in which ideas must now compete.

But gift-giving in and of itself, at least once a year, perhaps to commemorate a religious story of such, or perhaps just to do because "it is better to give than receive" or simply because yes people, especially kids, do enjoy receiving new and useful things, surely isn't immoral or otherwise something civilization and society would be better off without? — Outlander

There is actually a marked time when the Christmas tradition was commercialized and that's around mid-1800.

That said, no one is saying that give-giving is frowned upon. In fact, gift-giving has always been a part of the tradition. What I'm pointing out is that the sentiment in the past was the connection to the meaning of gift-giving and sharing. There were rituals such as singing, praying, arranging the table to with goods they made that celebrated the holiday. There were the lights outside the front door to signal the celebration.

Children were happy to receive gifts that were not marked by the manufacturer.
The point is that the affection and the emotion was for the Christmas itself not the brand name or who has the grandest gifts and decorations.

Basically, some empirical data suggests that our ancestors traditionally had a tail. Let's bring it back? — Astorre

Having a tail is not a tradition. :rofl: By that standard, "Most people have five fingers" would mean that it is traditional to have five fingers instead of biological.

When you proclaim communism, you discard traditionalism. Don't you think that nothing will fundamentally change? I'm referring to the replacement of one "belief" with another. — Astorre

Which is why communism does not really work. Most communities like their customs and traditions. When a communist government takes over, the traditions don't just disappear. They go underground and wait for the fad to pass. It takes a long time and the anhilation of the people to kill their traditions.

Traditionalists may be called fools, but very soon, when our advanced societies enter a gradual decline due to our desire to erode all identity and tradition, we will see others rise up—with beards and tambourines—and rule. — Astorre

Survival is the most important tradition, and it will always return and the old methods of living will come to the fore.