What are the philosophical foundations of multiculturalism and cultural relativism?

Hierarchy must be established by a measurement. The nation was once such a measurement. With technological progress, the nation is no longer a valid measurement.

...

>But the main stage, will always be of capital and the rampant transformation of other kinds of value into economic value.

I believe that this lies at the core, albeit hardcore Marxists and pragmatists will probably argue that there is little value besides economic value.

God I wish he would wrap those lips around my cock

In my opinion, it's not really founded in theory.

Seems to me more like a coping mechanism aimed at giving moral and ideological value to 1. the international movement of labour that came along with post-1950's capitalism and 2. being the least like Hitler possible (which is essentially the value system of the west).

So, more of a reaction to historical circumstances than an attempt at proactive design of historical circumstances

>tfw you realise that the alt-right, white nationalism, Trump etc is an entirely logical and predictable result of postmodern scepticism

I believe these things have more to do with feasible economic realities than anything else.

Makes sense for multiculturalism, but not so sure about cultural relativism. I'm not entirely sure what OP means by that, but assuming it's something like 'each culture has value on its own terms and they can't be objectively ranked', that seems a pretty logical result of post-Enlightenment scepticism. I.e. When the attempts to produce a 'science' of society and human behaviour obviously failed, you're left with relativism.

I would venture a guess:

The 1960-70s civil rights movement in the USA. See also the abolition of slavery.
The sexual and counter-culture revolution in the 70s. See also vietnam war.
The universal declaration of human rights by the united nations post ww2. See also religious and ethnic tolerance in post-reformation and imperial era (to sustain empires; even alexander the great promoted diversity in order to create his hold over his conquests).
Postmodernist thinking in the 80s and 90s.
The noble savage myth.

Rousseau
Most modern ideology is based on the flawed assumptions that
1. Man is fundamentally good
2. Men are fundamentally equal
3. Society is a mechanism for corrupting man and creating inequality
4. As man is fundamentally good, man's desires are also fundamentally good

>man is fundamentally good
what was he drinking?

Whatever it is that Reagan and Clinton used to justify their policies.

>I don't understand borders

I wish I could cut a big hole in him and put some maggots in it

>I don't understand something, therefore it should be removed.

Ladies and gentlemen, the mind of a millennial.

Karl Popper

Pure unadulterated Frenchness

I think the oldest mentioning of any numbers connected to Satan say 616, but I haven't looked closely at that.

Elaborate.

>MacIntyre says that the modern ideology comes from 3 philosophers, Marx, Kant and Nietzsche, the first made us believe in distribution of wealth and the big state, the second that morality is independent from religion and is abstract in form of various rights and the third that we ought to reject Christianity. All of these may be said to be malformations of what they actually said and that may be so, but is not important for defecting where they appeared and what made them appealing. This is in his mind all related with the failure of the enlightenment to replace ideology with reason.

Which book of MacIntyre should I read to get more of that good shit bud?

swissness*

There isn't a complicated conspiracy. First world nations are attempting to strengthen their economies by importing workers. Multiculturalism is a meme they spread to facilitate the integration of culturally distinct people. The same thing happened in Rome when the leaders talked about the virtue of cooperation between different cultural and racial groups, an economic necessity for them since Rome was a cultural nonhomogenous entity.

Modern multiculturalist policies are an extention of the neo liberal goal. To strip away from all goods resources everything but the raw economic value. Culture isn't important, they tell you. Only the good functioning of markets is

Nominalism

>All of these may be said to be malformations
No, it's literally made up shit that doesn't have to do anything with any of those three and whoever came up with this has to have shit for brains.

>Marx, Kant and Nietzsche, the first made us believe in distribution of wealth

Stop reading here

The meme of the "open society"

Popper, however, also warned against “tolerance towards the intolerant” and, in general, was more interested in science than politics

>"tolerance towards the intolerant"
yeah white people are intolerant we need to get rid of them

This anti-white drivel is no more than a fashionable rhetoric, adopted by contemporary Tumblr revolutionaries

No serious philosopher advocates this hatred

everybody should just stay forever in his own goddamn village and fuck his relatives amirite?
fuck yeah!

It doesn't matter what he argued for in this case, what matters is what his proponents are taking from his works

If anything, Popper has failed in both his endeavors in life (establishing means for tolerance and liberalism, and re-establishing the scientific method).

People in Academia are grossly positivist, going as far as justifying some kind of twisted "empirical positivism" where data somehow implies ontology.

As for society itself, Popper failed to realize democracy would indeed lead to an "open society" but only insofar as it is completely deterritorialized and absolutely devoid of face-to-face cultural interplay. He envisioned a future of rampant liberalism and globalization yet did not acknowledge this was synonym for a multi-dimensional panopticon where capital engulfs everything under its thirsty eyes. Tolerance for the intolerant is preached selectively in the precise paradoxical and insidious way he told everyone not to be, and the ironically open society closes itself on its edges leaving no direction for anyone to diverge into: the world becomes its own pocket universe of ever increasing entropy, with freedom for the collective becoming totalitarianism for the individual.

It's not that Popper caused any of this to spread, he simply failed to correctly identify his key points as the very things causing the spread, like the moth clinging to the warm of the lamp. But who could stop this development after all?

Why is his smile a frown?

>No serious philosopher advocates this hatred
*ahem*

Popper had little influence in the political sphere

SJWs use poorly understood French post-structuralism to “back” their demands, not Popper

its more straight up structuralism that the sjws use but yeah

i wonder if they realize that their whole ideology is based on the social science version of astrology

He can't wait to experience the fascinating cuckold in real life.

In defense of Popper, he wrote as early as in the 1940s, when dominant paradigms were Marxism and National Socialism, both severely flawed and dangerous ideologies, against which democratic liberalism had to be defended.

In the 2010s, while we still face many problems, the open societies of Popper arguably brought the best results in every sphere of life.

You never opened a book by Derrida, did you?

Structuralism is one of the best approaches in the humanities tbqh.

Politicans don't talk about différance or dispositif in their speeches of accepting economic migrants from Africa and embracing multiculturalism, they talk about the Open Society.

>Derrida
>Serious philosopher

They use general ideas of humanism and tolerance which predate Popper by centuries and can be found in Locke, Prussian Protestantism and whatnot.

Why does the elite want race mixing so badly?
Why do they care about boarders when they own everything inside and outside of them?

There is no broad “conspiracy of the elites”. Its simple economic necessity that caused countries like Germany, the UK, US and Sweden to attract as many immigrants as possible.

immigration in sweden is such an economic disaster that the politicians can't even talk about supposed benefits anymore, but have had to replace their justifications with appeals to morality instead

I know I'm not mong. I just want to see what they believe.

Multiculturalism and cultural relativism are mutually exclusive, though. The former wants to subsume all culture under a post-Protestant hegemony, and reduce cultural differences to innocent private fetishes beneath a totalizing secular humanism. Cultural relativism would envision distinct cultures as genuinely distinct.

In other words multiculturalism envisions multiple cultures in one space, which is destructive to their genuine distinctions, and so is a kind of absolutism.

Post-modernism and neo-marxism.

He probably would if you told him you were a refugee.

Its not as simple as welfare spending and unemployment data. In some aspects, immigration may have had positive results

Correction. It's to attract as much hardworking and intelligent immigrants as possible so they will not be a burden on the system and contribute in the end. All immigration must be merit based instead of free movement. Europe's problem is that all the "immigrants" are from Africa. Most asians community such as the Viets, seem to integrate very well wherever they may settle.

He looks rather Jewish.

That also answers your question.

>There is no conspiracy of the elites
>it was simple Economic necessity

Tell me, who is going to win, and who is going to lose given the clear alternative option of subsidizing an increased birth rate?

i really REALLY want to take this bait, but I won't.

Thats true. Assimilation is a problem Americans don't really experience like Europe does. Our immigrants come from a traditional Roman Catholic background which has its roots in European culture.

I've read an article in the NYT about Canada's immigration policy which was designed to divide the electorate which until then was basically english and french. Immigrants don't give a fuck about Quebec's sovereignty for instance. The finality of such a move is probably still an economic one (an unified Canada is better for business) but it's still a bit more than "simple economic necessity" in my opinion.
I think there are two camps in favor of such immigration policies: the ones who plan to make money off it and the ones that wants it for ideological reasons (they could be good soldiers for the revolution, refugees welcome, demographic and cultural subversion, etc...). The latter are the useful idiots

I can more or less confirm this. Quebec has been heavily resisting the English influence of Canada, but in 2017 they aren't allowed to resist Muslim influence lest they be seen as raycis. Canada is essentially colonizing Quebec with refugees and it's working

The government will. Instead of shelling out with money they don't have to have an increased workforce twenty years down the road, whilst increasing the number of welfare recipients, they will just take in people who are of working age, who need work, and are somewhat already experienced. Oh yea and they will begin contributing tax revenue as soon as they arrive.

>subsidizing an increased birth rate

Not truly an equivalent, since kids cost the state a lot of money. These days, people only enter the work force at 25-29. Most of them get more in government services than they pay in taxes.

Immigrants, however, immediately stimulate the economy by paying taxes and consuming.

The motives of Canada differ from those elsewhere. Canada is in the luxurious position of choosing its immigrants. They dont get the illegal Mexicans and hungry African youths, they get well-behaved Azns and highly skilled Indians.

You mean South Americans?
They also contribute thicc women, food, and latin pop. All of which are extremely popular.

Can a connection be drawn between their cultural basis and their role in America today?

The truth about the USA is that its the most universal, easiest-to-integrate-into society in the World, because its built upon universal, common denominators: the search for happiness, wealth, pleasure, physical beauty.

>the amount of brainletism in this post

why are jewish lips so disgusting?

Its the truth, has been from the beginning. This is the melting pot mentality.

he's right though, the US is a culturally barren capitalist materialist wasteland. there are no real values there to adapt to. Just buy stuff and eat.

>culturally barren
Is that why we've produced the most and best art in the world for the past century or so?

Its not culture barren, though. In a sense, the “post-Protestant”, utilitarian marketplace of rational, hedonistic subjects IS culture. You dont perceive it as such, because you see it as a given.

Very reductionist viewpoint mate. Are you american?

Swiss nationality is a meme.

>Comprehensive list of american literary writers of worth

Herman Melville

The majority of art for the past century has not been books.

The delusion, you produced entertainment not art.

There are no multiculturalists or relativists, relativism is just a mask for liberals/lefties when they want to play a conservative game. Go over to India and argue against castes and you will see all of the multicultural relativists tell you that you're "violently imposing western notions on our culture" or whatever.

European film is superior. European painting is also superior but not by much. American music is the best, I'll give you that. Dunno about literature.
Please go spout your 15yo fake deep platitudes somewhere else.

If it's not entertaining, it's not art. We produce art and copious amounts it annually along with Japan.

America > Japan > Europe in the art department. Deal with it.

>rational consumer meme
>in america of all places

dumb weebposter

>the US is a culturally barren capitalist materialist wasteland
dude you have serious problems with your worldview if you write off a massive nation with over 325 million people because they enjoy one of the highest standards of living of all time

>European film is superior.
lmao

>dunno about literature
Welcome to Veeky Forums ;)

I don't think you know what weeaboo means.

America has a fascinating high culture, with some of the very best movies, books, comics originating there, but the popular culture with overblown sports, Miley Cyrus and consorts, superficial communication and dating is simply cancer.

I meant "I can't really tell which is superior because they're both very good and I don't know enough about american lit so I don't feel confident in making a judgement".
Ok?
Ok
lmao xd btfo lol rekt

This doesn't make any sense at all. Marx was not the first to propose redistribution of wealth (and nigga do you even know what fucking ABSOLUTISM was? Marx was arguing for THE END of the state), Kant's whole morality depens on a immanent source which is for all intents and purposes god and Nietzsche was not the first at all to reject christianity (idk who it is but I don't think even Spinoza qualifies).

This. I forget that Europeans probably think when Americans talk about their culture they're referring to the trash pop social media culture. Thing is, trash culture is still culture even if it's trash (and sometimes trash is enjoyable, like trash genre fiction) and that's just a testament to exactly how multilayered America is culturally.

Go be mad somewhere else. America's artistic production is just a gigantic meme. It's dumbed down forms of arts designed to appeal to as many consumers as possible.
The early 20th century was okay for America but it was also the case with most european countries. Cinema didn't wait for americans to be great and while americans did produce some great movies it all went to shit pretty fast once Hollywood became a quasi monopoly. They also still can't into literature, something Chateaubriand noticed 200 years ago.
America dominates now that non american countries do not produce anything of worth, that doesn't mean american "art" is quality art.

I very much doubt any marxist would disagree with that, a huge lot of marxists have made the exact same point. It sounds like you've never dealt with materialism outside of biased sources and your very own imagination.

t. pleb

I would say that in Europe, more people (percentually) are interested in the high culture at all, while in the US, its a rarity to have intellectual interests

The existence of the continental philosophical tradition probably makes us (Europeans) feel smarter as well

Deterritorialization.