Right, because it’s not, and that’s the point. A specific group would constitute a concrete entity; the group membership can change with the society maintaining its identity because the society is abstract.
Last edited:
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Poll: "no such thing as society"
- Thread starter Eddi
- Start date
Wu Wei
ursus senum severiorum and ex-Bisy Backson
So....society is the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community.
Yes, did I ever disagree with that statement? I think I began my reply thereto with “Yes, right…”, but you seem to be reacting as if I disagree with you (?) I simply wanted to reemphasize an aspect of the concept of “society” which reflects upon the comment by Margaret Thatcher with which @Eddi began his O.P. Nothing about that contradicts your statement of the obvious, does it?
Last edited:
There is a sociological concept called the Nomos
Nomos (sociology) - Wikipedia
Nomos (mythology) - Wikipedia
In either case, one does not have to be born into the Nomos, one can be adopted by it and/or can adopt it as ones own.
Another word for this would be “culture”, no? It is a great observation, and makes me wonder if the thing that we call “society” is not really a type of symbol for “a particular culture”.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
No, because it can be argue that a society can be multicultural and/or have sub-cultures.
So you have to differentiate between laws and norms/customs.
I will use myself as an example. For laws I am as Danish, covered by Danish laws, EU laws and international laws. Formally I am a citizen of Denmark because I am born of Danish parents. That is society in the formal legal sense in my culture.
For culture outside the legal it is a bit more complex. Overall I share a certain amount of norms with other Danes. But I also have traits of sub-culture because I am neuro-diverse, had a childhood in a subpar family, my extended family are teachers, I am a former professional soldier and a former civil servant.
So some of my norms are individual but others are a result of specific sub-cultures.
PureX
Veteran Member
When you're rich, and all your cronies are rich, and you all tell yourselves that you deserve to have more than everyone else because you're smarter, more courageous, and work harder than everyone else, it's easy to adopt the idea that greed and selfishness are actually good for humanity because it works for you. You are being rewarded for it.
And it's also easy to tell yourself that any talk about people looking out for each other, and owing a social responsibility to each other is just the talk of losers that are jealous and lazy. Some of you reading this even believe it.
But Reagan and Thatcher were the harbingers of the fall of modern civilization because they despise civility and approved of ruthless greed. They believed that selfishness motivated all human advancement.
And they were dead wrong.
But sadly their idiocy lives on after them, and so modern civilization continues to poison itself with fear and greed and the stupidity of selfishness that those two "leaders" preached as virtues.
And it's also easy to tell yourself that any talk about people looking out for each other, and owing a social responsibility to each other is just the talk of losers that are jealous and lazy. Some of you reading this even believe it.
But Reagan and Thatcher were the harbingers of the fall of modern civilization because they despise civility and approved of ruthless greed. They believed that selfishness motivated all human advancement.
And they were dead wrong.
But sadly their idiocy lives on after them, and so modern civilization continues to poison itself with fear and greed and the stupidity of selfishness that those two "leaders" preached as virtues.
Last edited:
Well yes. Each nomos comes with its own norms/unconscious programming. It is kinda like a Jungian Archetype, but is particular to a certain group or area. It is also one aspect of Maara of Buddhism.
It seeks to reside just below the consciousness of the group that it envelops/comprises. This makes it resistant to conscious critique. People will just take it for granted as "that is just how things are," and "how reality is based," and will sometimes become defensive if it is questioned. (No one likes to admit that they have unconscious programming, and it can be quite scary to have what you consider as your basis of reality questioned.) Those who are from outside of the nomos might be seen as barbarians, and those who critique the nomos might be met with defensive hostility. Those who don't conform to the nomos are often bullied, persecuted, and scapegoated by those under unconscious power of the nomos. (This particular phenomenal aspect is often called Maara.)
Feminism calls the nomos that it critiques The Patriarchy. This explains why feminism is often treated with hostility, as feminism critiques the nomos, which can be seen as a threat, and why feminism generally focuses most of its critique on its own culture, rather than actively going after other nomos/cultures.
Last edited:
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
It connects to doxa and episteme in a sense.
Right. I think that the common culture is codified in law, while aspects of individual cultures remain as artifacts. I personally loathe the concept of a “multicultural society” almost as much as I do the concept of the “territorial nation-state”.
Putting the nomos concept into the framework of the OP:
I remember something Pope Francis when he said: If you see someone who needs food, don't just pray for them. First you feed them, and then you pray for them. That is how it works.
The actions along with the prayer is a form of influencing the nomos, in hope that the nomos will in turn prompt others to feed the hungry. The term Christ consciousness, which is tied to the congregation/gathering of people, might be likened to a nomos. The Antichrist would refer to all of the hostile unconscious programming coming out before the people realize the unchristlike programming they are being influenced by--I think it is referred to as powerful delusion in 2 Thessalonians 2. The Antichrist comes first--the malevolent unconscious programming must be brought into consciousness and dealt with --before Christ consciousness can come.
I remember something Pope Francis when he said: If you see someone who needs food, don't just pray for them. First you feed them, and then you pray for them. That is how it works.
The actions along with the prayer is a form of influencing the nomos, in hope that the nomos will in turn prompt others to feed the hungry. The term Christ consciousness, which is tied to the congregation/gathering of people, might be likened to a nomos. The Antichrist would refer to all of the hostile unconscious programming coming out before the people realize the unchristlike programming they are being influenced by--I think it is referred to as powerful delusion in 2 Thessalonians 2. The Antichrist comes first--the malevolent unconscious programming must be brought into consciousness and dealt with --before Christ consciousness can come.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Well, you don't have to use multicultural if you don't want to, but you properly can't avoid sub-cultures.
That's prolly why he's ensconced in his bubble, surrounded
by well fed minions. Tis easier to keep one's wealth & lavish
lifestyle if never burdened by mingling with the poor.
My general feeling about “multiculturalism” is that it is a cultural expression of individualism. The thing is, I don’t feel that individualism should extend beyond the individual to groups of individuals. People who intend to live together for an extended period of time should intentionally decide what type of culture they should wish to express, and then adapt themselves accordingly. A single individual who enters a culture should express respect for his or her fellows by adapting himself or herself to the culture of those with whom they shall live, unless the stay is to be temporary. If I were to emigrate permanently to, say, France, then I would consider it my duty to cease being an American and to become a Frenchman in all ways, including modes of thought.Well, you don't have to use multicultural if you don't want to, but you properly can't avoid sub-cultures.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Take a standard sub-culture of the past, the punks (not the group) as a limited group within an overall culture.
How large is this 'society' you speak of, though.
I've been parts of communities which absolutely do more to care for individuals than their family.
Is this like 'there is no justice'?
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
It would be interesting if you can name one like you describe. Even indigenous communities are not even as close.
"Justice" is when ya get what ya want.
PureX
Veteran Member
A society can only exist by mutual agreement. So long as people see themselves as individuals competing against everyone else for what they need and want in life, there can be no society.
It is this mutual agreement that we are losing to fear, and greed, and selfishness, that is causing our society to unravel.
It is this mutual agreement that we are losing to fear, and greed, and selfishness, that is causing our society to unravel.