Epistemological Relativism

So, I went to see 300, again; this time in IMAX. I had two reasons for going. The first is obvious for anyone who has seen the movie. It is a great graphic novel to film adaptation. The stylized cinematography is incredible and fits the character of the novel. But I won’t be discussing this reason here. The second reason I was inclined to see it again is because I continue to hear complaints from the Persian community that this film misrepresents, distorts, caricatures and otherwise tramples upon Persian history and culture. With this second reason in mind, I attempted to watch the film through Persian lenses. I hoped that I might detect within the film the reasons why many are disturbed, angry and upset at this film. In short, I did manage to see what may be offensive to the Persians. I could, of course, be totally wrong. In any event, it was an excellent experiment in attempting to be objective and to step outside one’s own societal and cultural context.

Some of the popular complaints that I hear are that the Persians within the movie are ugly, demonic and utterly fantastic. This, so the argument goes, portrays the Persians of that period as monsters to the viewers. Somehow this picture of fifth century Persians will jump across time and space and cause people today to view modern-day Persians in the same light. Now, whether this is what will happen is difficult to say. All I can offer is my assessment.

In the film there are Persian Immortals and an “uber” Immortal that are by all accounts rather unpleasing to look at. Nevermind the fact that their appearance doesn’t quite match the description given by Herodotus, but I digress. And nevermind the fact that Herodotus may have indeed fallen victim to what I am about to describe, but I digress again. These guys are ugly. Just take my word for it. If I were a Persian and this elite military unit were portrayed in this way I too would be a bit perturbed.

But, think about this for a moment. Think about the Immortals from the perspective of those who had or would very soon be engaged in battle with these military elites. They were a unit who seemingly never died. We know that any member of this unit who was killed or injured would immediately be replaced by another highly skilled warrior. Their ability in battle was perhaps legendary even in that time. Their equipment, however inferior to the Greek’s of that period, was still impressive. Those that had faced the Immortals and lived perhaps told tall tales of their encounter. Word spread and soon there were fantastic accounts of this elite fighting force. From the eyes of a Greek, would they not have thought these things? Would they not have told similar stories?

The Immortals within the film 300 are nothing more than projections or personifications of the Greeks. Instead of the standard Persian Immortal of history (if we can really know who that was, but I digress again) we have a picture on screen of the Immortials within the minds of the Greeks during that period. It is not terribly original, but it does make for an interesting movie when what is in the minds of an opposing army confronts them in the flesh. All the tales of these Immortals were conflations of a imaginative warrior. So, instead of being perturbed, I would, as a Persian, be proud that the battlefield skills of he Immortals where the cause of terror, dread and renown. Maybe this is not something that a Persian today would be proud of? I don’t know, but Immortals were the type of force that would instill these strong emotions in the enemy. And they did this because they proved it.

This explanation settled it for me, but I am not Persian. This is both good and bad. Perhaps because I am not Persian I can be a bit more objective in the assessment. But, because I am not Persian, I cannot see other dimensions of this insult. In the end, I am convinced. This explanation is useful for the character Xerxes in the film as well. Approaching the Persians in the film from the eyes of a conquered nation or one that has experienced their might in battle may be illuminating for the Persians out there.

This leaves only one more general consideration. There is also complaints that the Persians are vilified in the film. On all levels, some claim, the Persians are represented as unsophisticated, conquering savages with no sense of culture, honor and decency. This is quite a bit to extract from a film inspired by a comic book as imagined by its author, but let’s try to sort it out. I think I’ve dealt sufficiently with the savages part above. For the other attributes, I would argue that the Battle of Thermoplyae and stories about it, does not have as its goal the enumeration of all the Persian achievements of the period. Instead, it attempts to communicate a battle between a group of relatively sovereign states and a foreign power intent on acquiring more. I won’t bother to stir the pot and discuss what this nebulous more is. The point is made, I think, without that.

So, if this is true, why are some still upset? It is the romantic in all of us. We all look back fondly at the cultures we are a part of. We praise all of the incredible social, economic and technological advances. The Persians accomplished a great deal in all of these areas. That is without question. What many fail to realize, and this may be where perspective will help illuminate, is that the Persian empire of that period conquered many nations. To presume that fifth century Persia simply annexed territories for itself by mutually beneficial treaties offered at the hand of a benevolent ruler is pure fantasy. Sure, there are cases where the conquered territories were treated with some level of dignity and respect, but what about the others? Look at the history. This period of time was a tumult of violence and, unfortunately, Persia was not immune. The survival of a nation required it. In the final analysis, many failed to remember the complete legacy of the Persian Empire of this period. And no matter how romantically we may look back at the Persian culture in the fifth century, to say nothing of whether it is justified or not, we are confronted with the simple fact that the Persian army traveled across the Mediterranean with the intent to draw the Greeks by forceful coercion into submission and subservience to the Persian Empire. If this is offensive I am sorry, but these are the facts as we know them.

So ends my analysis of the film 300 and the response of the Persian community. Many may still be unconvinced by my brief sketch, but I encourage all to look back at history and while doing so look at it from beyond our respective cultural context. If this is done, I believe that my arguments will not be seen as the opinion of a confused western movie-goer.

After a good conversation with some friends the other day I realized that we have a habit of rejecting arguments from someone who does not possess some set of qualiications. Sometimes these qualifications are education, sometimes they are a certain set of experiences. At other times we reject the arguments for reasons not at all related to the subject. Instead we reject the argument because we don’t share the person’s habits, way of thinking or way of living. This type of thinking or lack thereof can best be captured by the Genetic Fallacy. The Genetic Fallacy “is committed when an idea is either accepted or rejected because of its source, rather than its merit.”

How often do we reject outright an argument from someone who we consider not up to the task? How about finding flaws in someone when they give us an opinion which we don’t particularly like without really considering whether it is true or valid? Watch yourself today, see how often you fall victim to this fallacy. It is important, I think, because the more we fall victim to this the more our minds become closed to alternate views, new ways of thinking and most importantly of all correction of our erroneous views. It this effect we should fear above all others.

Genuine truths of faith are never in conflict with logic or with the sciences; they conflict only with the rationalistic or positivistic metaphysics, that is, with a reason that arrogates to itself the right to define the whole range of truth from the standpoint of man.

- Emil Brunner, Revelation and Reason (The Westminster Press, 1946) 213.

Tolerance is a humane attitude, which respects the personality of the other, but it has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of ther “other’s” opinions and ideas.

- Emil Brunner, Revelation and Reason (The Westminster Press, 1946) 219.

While driving home and flipping through the radio station I heard a program that was dicussing the recent decisions by congress aimed at getting our troops home. I was amazed by the announcer and the callers. The announcer claimed that if we stop the war we will eventually be fighting “them” on our soil. Others called in and said that if we left, other more powerful regimes would move in a take control of the region. Yet others claimed that we cannot and should not stop the war against Al Qaeda. I was mortified at the lack or willingness to think carefully about the reality of the situation. I won’t debate about how we got into the war, because, quite honestly, that is water under the bridge. But, to pretend that we are there to “fight Al Qaeda” or prevent terrorist attacks through preemption is silly.

Iraq was under the control of a despotic regime. Nobody argues with that. What many miss is that because of this absolute rule Sadam was able to “unite” (read: suppress) all of the other groups and cultures within Iraq. There are Kurds with unique nationalistic views and there are Shiite and Sunni Muslims. And don’t think because I grouped the two together that they are similar. They diverge in the level of secularization, political outlook and, of course, the usual cultural differences. Even though they may have gotten along more peacefully in times past the recent history of abuses has led to a situation in which it is difficult for anyone to get along.

There is now a vacuum in the region. Groups are attempting to gain control of what they think is their’s or what they are entitled to. Can we really blame them? We removed a totalitarian regime, but we failed to consider what this would do in a region with several different groups of people. So now, we pretend that Iraq is just a big plot of land with a bunch of “islamo-fascists” that need to be taken out before they take us out. Let’s be real. Many (most?) are laying claim to what they think is rightfully theirs whether through political process or by force.

Instead of fighting the battles of all these groups perhaps we should figure out how to undo what we (in the past few years) and the Brits (after WWI) have done and make it right? This talk about fighting Al-Qaeda, preventing terrorists from attacking us here and other rhetoric is getting old. Haven’t we screwed up enough nations? Haven’t we learned from history and in particular British colonialism? Haven’t we learned that we get it wrong more often than not (Just take a look at the decisions of the League of Nations)?

I shouldn’t have to say this, but this isn’t “anti-war” in the broad sense, because I believe there is a place for war. I have had relatives, as most people have, serve this country with honor and distinction. But, to continue this particular effort under these false pretenses I think dishonors their courage and sacrifice. There are dozens of cases where military action was required (read: we were morally obligated to act) and has stopped the abuse of people at the hands of those with power. There are consequences even for these good and noble causes. In the case of Iraq, I don’t think we considered what would happen when the people, all the people, were freed from the regime. They are now free from the regime and its atrocities, but instead of living life like they were minus Saddam, they want something different.

I was having yet another interesting conversation about life’s most difficult or though-provoking questions. I won’t focus on those questions, but I did happen to use the phrase “It is a vexing question”. I’ve decided that I really like that word. I think it captures the essence of those types of questions. You know, the ones that you struggle to properly formulate and then seriously struggle with the possible answers. And I don’t just mean intellectually struggle either. I think “vexing” is one of those words that adds real depth and precision. I nominate it for my word of the week. You didn’t know I had a word of the week? Yeah, neither did I. As an aside, I would show you the etymology of vex, but I don’t have this yet.

EDIT: Here is the etymology of vex, although it is a bit incomplete.

You may have noticed or will soon be noticing a large flood (if I have the time and inclination) of theological reflections. This is because of my investigations into the nature of faith. I am reading all sort of monographs on the topic. Some authors speak to those that are on the “inside ” (sorry Keith and Dustin) and others who speak to everyone else. This is directly related to my other research in epistemology. It seems at first that faith is somewhat at odds with any sort of epistemological project, but it is too soon to tell. I have already taken some fairly informal polls and sent out a few initial email correspondences with some academics. Unfortunately, it seems that not many people think too much about faith. Is faith some type of reasoning process? Is it concerned with rationality at all? How has the definition of faith been revised since and before the enlightenment? Since this definition of faith is so central it exposes me to a lot of great theological reflection that in my younger fundamentalist days I was sheltered from. Hope you enjoy it.

Don’t you just love those silly little quizes? Yes? Well I found another while perusing my RSS feeds. Apparently I know the Bible 100%. Isn’t that great? Care to try? I won’t mention how terrible some people do on this. Oh wait, too late.

HT: Codex

I thought I’d share the glyphs that I use to markup the books that I read. Once you get over the initial reaction of writing in your books (which took me a while) it really is quite useful. If you create enough meaningful glyphs flipping through a previously read book gives you immediate access to quotes, important/interesting points and main arguments. Prior to this I had a little notebook that I’d jot down page numbers or other bits of information. This was quite cumbersome. Nevermind the fact that you had to make sure you didn’t lost your notebooks. I use a mechanical pencil or some other erasable medium. I’m sure some people out there want to start reading more books or something like that this year and this may help the process a bit. In order from top to bottom: good or interesting point, main argument, quote, emphasis, questionable or confused, funny and sad. You can use these in any combination to get the desired effect. I think these are lean enough that you don’t have to learn another language and yet meaningful enough to capture your reaction to the books you read. Enjoy.

We recently started art technique with my daughter and son. Using the text Drawing with Children we are attempting to develop “realistic” approach to drawing. The text uses a method of recognizing basic shapes as building blocks to drawing all objects. As I read the text and went through the first chapter with the kids over a couple of sessions I reflected back on how I drew as a teenager. I didn’t receive training, but I think intuitively recognized these relationships and common shapes. Here’s a sample, for those that are interested, of what I used to draw over 10 years ago.

I think the sketches are self-explanatory. Needless to say I was a volleyball and Spawn fan at the time.