This is an objectively false statement. The things needed to make 2+2=5 violate fundamental mathematical axioms, postulates, number theory in general, and require that you use numbers to not represent their own quantities (if 5 = 4, then 2+2=5).
Part of the point of mathematics is that asserted cultural traditions do not change that 2 AND 2, and 4 are equivalent statements. This is why "Ethiopian Multiplication" was not rejected, even though it was a strange process that also invoked dieties. It simply reflected the results of conventional mathematical procedures, but it it's own way (it used sets of primary numbers to calculate large multiplications, rather than a form of carry-over single digit multiplication and addition). The Ethiopian procedure was valid because it reflected fundamental truths like 10 x 4 = 40. It never argued 10 x 4 = 50, because that would be wrong.
But you're right. The fundamental objective here is to destroy objective measurement so they can assert (and make people believe) the utterly impossible "for progress".
That's where the postmoderinsm bent of Critical Social Justice comes from. It's basically because all our experiences are subjective, we can never reach objective reality, and should abandon even trying. That's why "lived experience" is good and "empirical evidence" is an oppressive construct made to enforce the white patriarchal hegemony.
There is no objective truth. Truth is what we call the set ideas that have been enforced on us by political hegemonies. If you have the power, you dictate the truth.
This is what they believe because they can use it to justify their lust for power. If they have the power, they can dictate utopia.
Now, go watch Chernobyl, and see what happens when political power dictates that it is impossible for an RBMK reactor to explode.
"Every lie we tell incurs a debt to the truth. Sooner or later that debt is paid."
Most of the time, cultures aren't defeated like that. They were simply rejected because they didn't serve as useful as a purpose. It's like how many religions die (excluding any that came into contact with Islam). The religions were not murdered, they were abandoned. It's the very nature of the strange: "my god is stronger" argument. These gods are not killed, they do not fight each other, but the person who says that is inadvertently arguing that their society & institutions are stronger. It may be the case in many places.
Think of how Christianity has expanded so thoroughly in Africa and the Americas. If Christianity had no value, it would not have been readily adopted by people who were getting preached at by missionaries, in the same way that you don't find Anubis compelling. People are buying into a set way of living, that must confer a benefit, otherwise they wouldn't change. They do not have to be conquered or defeated.
Again... this is intentionally excluding Islam because that's a major way of expanding itself. It's advantages are different, compared to other systems, are different. It really did defeat most of the cultures it came into contact with, barring a few.
This is an objectively false statement. The things needed to make 2+2=5 violate fundamental mathematical axioms, postulates, number theory in general, and require that you use numbers to not represent their own quantities (if 5 = 4, then 2+2=5).
Part of the point of mathematics is that asserted cultural traditions do not change that 2 AND 2, and 4 are equivalent statements. This is why "Ethiopian Multiplication" was not rejected, even though it was a strange process that also invoked dieties. It simply reflected the results of conventional mathematical procedures, but it it's own way (it used sets of primary numbers to calculate large multiplications, rather than a form of carry-over single digit multiplication and addition). The Ethiopian procedure was valid because it reflected fundamental truths like 10 x 4 = 40. It never argued 10 x 4 = 50, because that would be wrong.
But you're right. The fundamental objective here is to destroy objective measurement so they can assert (and make people believe) the utterly impossible "for progress".
That's where the postmoderinsm bent of Critical Social Justice comes from. It's basically because all our experiences are subjective, we can never reach objective reality, and should abandon even trying. That's why "lived experience" is good and "empirical evidence" is an oppressive construct made to enforce the white patriarchal hegemony.
There is no objective truth. Truth is what we call the set ideas that have been enforced on us by political hegemonies. If you have the power, you dictate the truth.
This is what they believe because they can use it to justify their lust for power. If they have the power, they can dictate utopia.
Now, go watch Chernobyl, and see what happens when political power dictates that it is impossible for an RBMK reactor to explode.
"Every lie we tell incurs a debt to the truth. Sooner or later that debt is paid."
And when the dictated utopia proves elusive they will need a scapegoat. It's pretty obvious where that leads.
They're using "social construct" as "utterly arbitrary". They always re-define words to suit their needs.
I wouldn't call them all defeated cultures.
Most of the time, cultures aren't defeated like that. They were simply rejected because they didn't serve as useful as a purpose. It's like how many religions die (excluding any that came into contact with Islam). The religions were not murdered, they were abandoned. It's the very nature of the strange: "my god is stronger" argument. These gods are not killed, they do not fight each other, but the person who says that is inadvertently arguing that their society & institutions are stronger. It may be the case in many places.
Think of how Christianity has expanded so thoroughly in Africa and the Americas. If Christianity had no value, it would not have been readily adopted by people who were getting preached at by missionaries, in the same way that you don't find Anubis compelling. People are buying into a set way of living, that must confer a benefit, otherwise they wouldn't change. They do not have to be conquered or defeated.
Again... this is intentionally excluding Islam because that's a major way of expanding itself. It's advantages are different, compared to other systems, are different. It really did defeat most of the cultures it came into contact with, barring a few.