Why is tradition good?

>Imagine if language was... always something being reinvented beyond an addition of words.
user, I don't know how to break this to you.

Why wouldn't it be? A group that is capable of setting itself apart from others, not just because of ethnic reasons, but social customs as well will have better group cohesion and will remain wary of outsiders. This is good for survival, just look at Europe, they have become so indoctrinated that they truly believe we are all the same, and Ahmed Mahmoud is just like them.

I don't mean words being added and omitted. There is a reason we don't speak Middle English, and I get that. What I am referring to is the absolute structure of the language itself. Imagine syntax changing on a daily basis. And I mean the tradition of a language. Perhaps I should have said it branches out, such as Latin did, but it is still based in a rooted tradition.

Tradition also adds to documentation, something also useful to humans. I don't think tradition is necessarily "good" per see. It can be neutral, at times. I do think, however, tradition has a level of pragmatism to it

Not good or bad. I think that it just adds something to the quality of human life at a given point in time. Even if not particularly useful, or good, it adds to the process of elimination for what we choose to do or not to do

>Not good or bad.
I have to agree, there is a difference between Indians throwing themselves on funeral pyres and the Brits drinking tea. It depends on the people and the particular trait.

>Though traditions might become a problem when the environment changes.

There are good and bads to everything. Sometimes it is better to rely on what your father taught you, sometimes it is better to invent your own culture. I just stated the "pros" part.

Of course, won't disagree.

Brits having tea culture actually relied heavily on Oriental Imperialism. So, maybe it is fair to say that tradition isn't morally void, but comes at cost:benefit?

Like I said it depends on the particular tradition. There is a difference between some limeys growing tea leaves in Sri Lanka and some woman throwing herself on a funeral pyre.

>Why wouldn't it be?

It would be easier to assimilate cultures or assimilate into one, creating a larger and more powerfull force. Or it would make you more simmiliar to your neighbors, allowing for better diplomatic relations.

>It would be easier to assimilate cultures
Wrong, it would be easier for a culture to assimilate the weaker culture
>or assimilate into one
correct

>creating a larger and more powerful force.
Possibly

>Or it would make you more simmiliar to your neighbors, allowing for better diplomatic relations.
Again, why would you want to be dominated by neighbors?

>Wrong, it would be easier for a culture to assimilate the weaker culture
Because it is easier to assimilate more different culture rather than the more simmiliar, right?

>Again, why would you want to be dominated by neighbors?
We are not talking about dominance, just better relations. Reason why would you want it, is obvious: more trade, less smaller wars, less crime etc.

What is good an bad tradition though?How would you distinguish them?

Usually such things wouldn't be mutual, and a dominant culture would take advantage of a naive culture. As we see in Europe, the Muslims don't assimilate no matter how tolerant the Europeans are. You can have the benefits trade, less wars, and less without the drawbacks by having a strong dominant culture. Look at Texas, they have a large amount of South American and Mexican immigrants, but they still retain Texan culture. Whereas California is basically Mexico 2.0 because they have a weak tolerant culture.

Tradition is bad because taken to it's pure logical conclusion we would still be living in caves eating raw meat.
I have no doubt humans had weird dumb rituals about eating raw meat before fire was discovered.

>less smaller wars, less crime etc.
ayy

It's the only way to make a movement last longer than the lifespan of a person. Tradition is to nations, empires, movements and forces what sexual reproduction is to lifeforms. It ensures the continued survival. Consider how Rome lasted for a thousand years but no person lives that long. Without tradition Rome would die with the people who founded it.

Everything that is good and beautiful is so because it's Traditional. A beautiful lifeform is beautiful because it's virile, healthy and strong, and thus has a high chance of passing on its genes and reproducing. To be Traditional is not to rigidly reproduce past behaviour but rather to pass on behaviour that is virile, strong and capable of reproducing itself.

best answers

All the humans who didn't ritualize the behaviour of eating meat, are now dead, because they didn't get enough calories. Consider animal sacrifice and the strict ritual behaviour surrounding it in past civilizations, this was a remnant of hunter peoples strictly ritualized slaughter of animals (and consequent consumption of the meat) which probably lead to the development of our increased brain capacity which is the only reason we are here today.

This is wrong because you can't objectively measure "progress" on a linear scale. There is no progress without a set goal to work towards, you have to realized this. Without a goal, your "progress" is merely change. Tradition is the absence of change. Imagine a field of crops. "Tradition" would be planting his crops there over and over. "Progress" would be planting the same crops, but moving to a different field every time. Unless you consciously know of a field that has better soil for planting your crops in, changing to a random field would make little sense.

Traditions are not inherently good. They must be constantly re-evaluated. Some will survive, some will die out. This process will always happen to some extent no matter how much people fight against it.

Read Burke

Furthermore, superstition is merely a degenerated ritual behaviour that lost its efficacy. That's something that really made me think, memes aside.

Well, if a tradition wasn't good, then it wouldn't be virile, and would be weeded out. It's like a lifeform, if it cannot survive in nature, then it dies. There's no need to "evaluate" tradition, because that which is Traditional is that which is virile and which reproduces.

Oops, i meant to quote you:

It's not necessarily good, it just has the potential to be.

Determine what is good and see how closely that and tradition align

>You can have the benefits trade, less wars, and less without the drawbacks by having a strong dominant culture.
Texan culture is small culture in a pool of small simmiliar cultures known as USA. Never the less, Did the strong Texan culture helped Texas in being the rich and succesfull sub-state?

>You can have the benefits trade, less wars, and less without the drawbacks by having a strong dominant culture.
Well, of course, if you have culture that kicks ass, then you don't have to worry about diplomacy that much, duh.

Also we were not talking about "strenght", "naivity" or "tolerance" but about "Distinctiveness". So lets look at following model

>There are two continents, one with green and one with blue peoples
>Green peoples are pragmatic, tolerant and easily adopt customs of their neighbors when they are succesful. When conquered by other green tribe, they don't really mind much. They all worship circle and its commandments which allows them to settle conflicts diplomatically.
>Blue peoples are prideful, bigoted and find foreign customs repulsive. Each of them has very different from others They all worship their ancestor's spirits, which are much better than spirits of their neighbors. When conquered Blue's fight to the death.
Which continent would be more succesfull? Can we really confidently claim that blues will be better?

Thanks for totally relevant information.

>there's no need to evaluate tradition

T. Autist

>naivity

It is not.

Really? That's all you have? Calling me autistic?

Yes, you're arguing against analytical thought. A proponent of ignorance, literally. Sorry I had to spell it out for you like that.

Well thanks for telling me all those things that i am, i guess.

>mfw the majority of posters on Veeky Forums who whine about muh Tradition are all posting on the internet on an image forum site with meme speak and reaction images on a daily basis whilst wearing modern clothing, living in modern homes and using modern devices with modern english dialects and modern understandings of history

Really makes you think

What is your point? I honestly can't tell.

>mfw the majority of lefties on Veeky Forums who whine about muh /pol/ are all posting from their privately owned homes, paid for through the hard work of their parents in a capitalist economy, who are clothed and fed by actual slave labor

That you don't have any concept of Tradition and are actually wrapped in Modernity throughout every section of your daily life and that your boner for Traditionalism is actually contradictory to your waking life, it is an ideological narrative you place upon yourself to feel comfortable, something to strive for whilst being completely wrapped in the easy life and simple efficiency of Modernity.

You're not actually a Traditionalist, you're an Anime Larper.

Who are you quoting?

The post you are replying to doesn't mention /pol/ once.

Autism.

>Who are you quoting?
Not an argument

Why is a country with an identity good?

>you don't adhere to all traditions all the time therefore you should join the wife sharing commune, mannnnn

Autism.

I know you feel bad behind your screen and are rushing to reply, called out for being retarded.

Go on, make another reply, I'm waiting :^)

Who are you quoting?

Sperg! Sad!

So a person trapped in a pit, can not yearn for an escape from said pit? That seems to be what you are implying.

>Because it isn't just a secondary cultural activity, but a primary. Imagine if language was not a tradition, and was always something being reinvented beyond an addition of words. Tradition gives some clarity as to what makes one group distinct, for whatever reason, from another. It's also a great way down the path of knowledge through whatever form of inquiry is used to understand the world, cosmos, etc.
you cant use language as an example for tradition when its literally the tool with which humans communicate with each other.
if we changed syntax and shit every day there'd be chaos on the street.

Smugness doesn't change the fact that without a global network of actual industrial slave labor you wouldn't have food or clothing

What the hell are you actually talking about?

Where does the original post say they are Communist or Left-wing?

You are so autistic you are strawmanning every reply. Sad!

No one's stopping you from attending Church, you just don't do it because you know you don't actually believe in it.

But keep masquerading as a Traditionalist whilst you watch BBC porn on the internet, I'm sure it'll make you feel better :^)

You said
>wrapped in Modernity throughout every section of your daily life and that your boner for Traditionalism is actually contradictory to your waking life
My point is, if you're some kind of liberal, you exist in this same state, because liberalism asserts the basic dignity of all human beings, and yet is depended economically on worldwide slave-labor.

You've made the classic mistake of confusing traditional forms with Tradition. The Church, and christianity is just one particular traditional form, while Tradition is a kind of metaphysical concept, in the Evolian sense.

So you admit you were strawmanning? Thanks!

>Evola

Into the trash it goes.

Well, how about you post a real argument so I can BTFO that too?

>if we changed syntax and shit every day there'd be chaos on the street.
Xactly

Traditions are nothing but the manifestations of a group's identity. By practicing it they are constantly reminding themselves and each other that yeah, we are still *these guys* who do *this* and *that*. Or they are 'traditions' that are actually social mechanisms that once became dominant to accomodate the economic opportunities of the times they were implemented in. In this case, tradition is a bad thing, the way we behave must always be up for reconsideration so that we can keep up with changing times. Actually, one of the many reasons Europe could rise above the rest was that Europeans traditionally (lol) care much less about dumb ass customs that stand in the way of cold hard rational economic interest.

>one of the many reasons Europe could rise above the rest
What historical event are you talking about here ?

I don't know man, maybe that thing called colonalisation.

At that point Europe had been "above" most other civilizations for hundreds of years though, in terms of art, philosophy, poetry, warfare etc. Well, depending on what people / tribe you mean by "Europe". My point being that Europeans have certainly in all times cared about tradition and customs.

>At that point Europe had been "above" most other civilizations for hundreds of years though

Exactly, and that was partially (very partially) because Europeans were more open to innovation if something looked more practical than what they were doing beforehand. They certainly care about customs, everyone does, but even today if you compare Westerners/whites to other people that are somewhat relevant (Asians, Middle-Easterns etc) our adherence to rationally meaningless traditions is far less rigid than theirs. Have you ever dealt with genuine Asians? They are pretty much unable to even just entertain the thought of doing something differently than how it is usually done.

Traditions are not inherently good on the basis of being traditions alone. But the majority of cultural traditions are beneficial for society, and are being tossed into the trashbin for the sake of "progress".

Traditions aren't exactly "nothing but" group identifiers. That implies that they serve no use beyond that. They're usually ways of strengthening the group's culture and bonds.

I want to argue that traditions are inherently good because they are virile. Just like lifeforms that are strong and abundant, like for example a predatory bird that establishes a strong population because of his ability to harvest prey, just so is a tradition (or rather a traditional form such as a dance, a song, or a custom) that is widespread also good, because it is virile and able to "reproduce" in the human populations where it does exist. Evangelical christianity is an example of an exremely virile (and thus good) tradition in this sense.

Tradition can be bad because it endorses behaviors based on what has been done before rather than the practicality of the present.

If something IS a tradition, it is likely to be good because many people would not repeat harmful behaviors knowingly. But the sheer fact that something is a tradition cannot be the reason for maintaining it, nor should the sheer fact that something is a tradition mean ending it. Values and traditions should be regularly tested on their merits.

circumcision tho

But if the tradition is harmful, how can it propagate into the next generation? I'd really like to know the answer to this.

Then you'll come into conflict with traditions that are "Virile", but harmful. The most extreme of examples is the human history of warfare.

At any given moment every single person on Earth could mutually agree to cease engaging in war. All labor, material and ingenuity used on it put to productive means instead. We don't, largely because we have traditions of mistrust and violence to one another.

Ahhh can't you see the answer to your dilemma? This means that war is (or can sometimes, under certain circumstances be) a good thing!

Ignorance of the harm generated and indoctrination to believing that there is a good which offsets the harm. There are also recursive cycles in which at one stage the tradition creates harm for one person, who then becomes a carrier for that tradition and harms someone else for it. Abused children who normalize their abuse and then carry it out on their own children later in life is an example.

Even to the most staunch militaristic people war is a good in response to the potential for war. "We must defend ourselves from them." If there was no potential for war, starting a war would always be bad because any material gains you make aren't worth the cost of life and resources, and in fact often lead to the destruction of that which you intended to gain.

That's of course speaking from an objective perspective that does not exist in humans. War was good for the people of the American colonies because they gained a great deal of resources, lands, and security. The harm caused to others wasn't material to the people who were benefiting. While it's possible to envision a world in which they did not commit to such wars which led to a better quality of life for all participants involved, you can't expect people in the moment to recognize and live their lives according to such an abstract concept.

>At any given moment every single person on Earth could mutually agree to cease engaging in war.
At any given moment one person could break that agreement and conquer the rest of them, not giving a damn about all the production that went into grenades and grenaded houses, because he came out on top in the end.

This is a good point.

I didn't say it was a realistic proposal.

It's also really questionable that he comes out "On top". What benefits does he have now that he couldn't have in a peaceful society? If anything, he has less access to resources than before. The only thing that's changed is everyone else has gone down to such a degree that he is now comparatively above them. He stands at the peak, but the new system he's built starts several points lower than the one he had before.

>Even to the most staunch militaristic people war is a good in response to the potential for war. "We must defend ourselves from them." If there was no potential for war, starting a war would always be bad because any material gains you make aren't worth the cost of life and resources, and in fact often lead to the destruction of that which you intended to gain.

This sounds to me like delusional ideas. How many militaristic cultures have not existed throughout history? Hundreds upon hundreds of virile, conquering peoples who cared little for the blood they shed. They invaded foreign tribes, killed their men, took their food, their horses and their women and went on their way. Rinse and repeat. You're talking about a war "in response for the potential of war", which brings to mind Athena, the goddess of strategic and just warfare. Well, not many peoples other than the Athenians ever worshipped such a god, even the Athenians themselves regularily went to war just for profit.
From the point of view of a tribe, a people, a single man, or a nation, war can be good.

Without unique culture, we all become part of a hive mind.

Enter popular culture.

>That's of course speaking from an objective perspective that does not exist in humans. War was good for the people of the American colonies because they gained a great deal of resources, lands, and security. The harm caused to others wasn't material to the people who were benefiting. While it's possible to envision a world in which they did not commit to such wars which led to a better quality of life for all participants involved, you can't expect people in the moment to recognize and live their lives according to such an abstract concept.

And so war is among the most virile traditions because it has always been practiced by humans and continues to be to this day, so we must concede that it is good, because if it were harmful it would not be practiced any longer, because its practitioners would all be weeded out from the gene pool.

Because a tradition is good for at least one person involved in its execution, it is good?

No, because it is lifestrong, reproductive, virile. The tradition of war itself, as well as the people who master it, are fruitful, they have many children, they prosper and multiply.

That doesn't engender much confidence in its benefits to me. You'd have to demonstrate conclusively that war was the best thing they could have done, rather than just what they did do.

In an analogy, "We have always taken the high road while passing through here' isn't by itself a good reason to take the high road. You're not demonstrating it was actually the best option, just accepting it because it is and was how things were done. Which is the worst aspect of tradition.

as a source of nutritional uptake
can I eat tradition

How about during the edo period in Japan

>You'd have to demonstrate conclusively that war was the best thing they could have done, rather than just what they did do
So because behaviour X is good, it has to be the best behaviour? That doesn't sound right to me.

You see i'm not rating any tradition by any arbitrary standard, i'm simply rating them by which of them manage to reproduce. And war (or rather, skill at war) is a very reproductive tradition. Just look at the joy with which young boys play games such as Call of Duty or Counterstrike in which the objective is to win in a modern war. It's engrained into every young boys mind to love war, to master war and to enjoy victory in war, this is because it is a virile trait passed down through the generations.

Interesting, but i can't speak for it because i don't know anything about japanese history.

For a behavior to be "Good" it should bring about good. A greater amount of benefit than suffering. It's not good for me to inflict pain on you, but it is good for me to set your arm after its dislocated, even though that will be a painful experience, because it is long term beneficial to you.

War by its nature is a reduction rather than a production of Good. It produces suffering in ways and means that are unheard of in any other context, and has a tendency to propagate itself through those acts of suffering. It begets itself not because of Good, but in order to inflict harm back unto those who harmed.

The propagation of behaviors can't be the standard of which we judge them as good or bad because there are lots of things you wouldn't want to be done to you which are relatively common. Murder is a virile tradition, rape is a virile tradition, corruption is a virile tradition. If the foundation of social good is "What we have done" then the sense of what "Good" is becomes broken. You can state that it's common, reasonable, but you shouldn't declare it "Good" specifically, because that is an endorsement of the behavior which suggests you think it should be spread farther than it is.

Young boys playing Call of Duty is not War. You know that. You can't separate war from its consequences. If, among your collection of young boys there were a portion who genuinely enjoyed war, who wanted to inflict the abject suffering that war brings on other humans for their own satisfaction, we'd call them psychopaths.

>If anything, he has less access to resources than before.
You think an average westerner has less resources than even a shithole dictator like the kims?

In war there are winners and losers. It's good for the winners, not so much for the losers. There's no way to measure the "greater amount of benefit". The only thing that matters is that which is beneficial to the DNA, the bloodline, that which causes the bloodline to have lots of strong offspring who may in turn have lots of strong offspring. I'll leave you with this because i have to go to sleep now, it was fun arguing though.

It's impossible to win a war with only benefits. You lose people and whatever resources you applied to war instead of something else. There'd be clear and evident benefits of not having that war in almost every case.

A people who are not willing to wage war is a people who are not willing to sacrifice themselves in search of a greater future. You can run your businesses and newspapers all you like, with such an utilitarian outlook you'll end up as the last men.

And hey, if war is so bad, just don't resist invaders and they probably will not kill you :^)

Oh yeah, I can't believe all those idiotic generals didn't realize that they've been throwing away something for nothing thousands of years ago, I guess it took an enlightened comfortable westerner to realize their errors.

Your logic is inherently flawed, how can you determine "good" when good is whatever you define as "good". Radical Islamists believe that it is "good" in the eyes of their god to take slaves, rape women, and kill people.

Your point about balance makes sense, and the internet age has allowed us to better judge what most humans believe is "good" and "evil", but it is definitely not as black and white as you make it out to be.

I forgot that nobody has ever done something that wasn't actually in the long term benefit of their people. Thanks for correcting me.

yeah look at all those stupid fucking romans they would have been much better off being an irrelevant bronze age tribe in the ass end of the italian peninsula

how fucking full is your head of petty-bourgeoisie ideology that you are actually typing this with what I presume is a serious face