How much do you value tradition?

[The Good]

How much do you value tradition as a whole, whether religious, ethnic, cultural, or family traditions? I observe all four of those categories of traditions, and I must say, without tradition, life would be bland, boring, and perhaps largely meaningless. An example of religious traditions in my life would be the celebration of Christmas and Easter in their true meanings, even though those may not be the exact dates of such events. An example of ethnic tradition would be, well, wearing particularily ethnic clothing, eating certain foods, listening to traditional/folk music, and perhaps even living in a particular type of house/dwelling. Cultural traditions are largely the same, actually, but in my mind, without a complete ethnic distinction. Family tradition would just often be something you do with your family frequently.

So how valuable is the concept of tradition to you? Is it something to be appreciated and enjoyed, or is it mainly a hinderance to the advancement of the sciences and mankind as a whole?

[Lord Anubis]

I voted the 3rd option because I hardly ever celebrate tradition unless you count atleast 5+ hours of Total War a day tradition and I don't really celebrate most Holidays or Cultural heritage and im an atheist call me boring but thats how I live.

[finsternis]

Third. I think that traditions (specially the ignorant ones) are a harm to the human development.

[AqD]

Third. I think that traditions (specially the ignorant ones) are a harm to the human development.

All traditions are ignorant and harmful because of the way people accept it. They're not necessarily bad themselves.
________
Ocean View Condos Prathumnak

[dwringer]

I dunno, I don't think life is worth living without traditions. Traditions such as mass-attended sporting events, marriage, holidays, etc.

Many traditions associated with these things can become problematic, and a lot of traditions can be harmful , but they're an integral part of the human experience. Therefore I pick option 2. I'm the only one to think this so far? :\

[Broken Pope]

I'm a bit schitzophrenic about this. On the one hand, I think its important to question everything and not be cowed by authority.

On the other hand, I think it is important to promote continuity in human affairs because it provides a common grounding and a shared scheme of societal reference. (For example, that the police wear uniforms, that professionals wear suits to work).

So I wimped out and went for option 2.

[Rich86]

Traditions can help as well as hinder.

In England during the Autumn months we have 'harvest' where all the kids in school bring in like a tin of peas or a packet of mars bars - stuff like that... this gets given to all the poor people in the area (normally the elderly ones I think) and so this tradition not only teaches the children the value of charity but also helps people who actually need the help.

[Steel of Fury]

Overall tradition is good. They wouldn't survive for so long if they haven't proved their value.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Tradition is not as permament or ancient as people think. Many traditions are revived or invented.

[Osceola]

Tradition is not as permament or ancient as people think. Many traditions are revived or invented.

Or would be completely alien to the inventors of said traditons, mother tradition. Like "Christmas in it's true meaning" for example.

[Shaun]

Couldn't care less about religious, ethnic, cultural and family traditions. In fact, as Ferrets correctly points out, most of this 'tradition' isn't exactly as old as many of its proponents think. A great many of it is only traditional to our current older generation.

[removeduser_426582376423734]

Tradition is useless.

[neoptolemos]

Tradition is useless.

This is somewhat an exaggeration, but sometimes it may be like this

[Shaun]

This is somewhat an exaggeration, but sometimes it may be like this

Tradition for the sake of tradition is useless. Although sometimes it's tradition best it's simply the best option. For example male soldiers. It's traditional that males fit to defend their families and land - not females - and since men are naturally stronger and tougher and more aggressive than females, it makes sense.

[removeduser_426582376423734]

Tradition for the sake of tradition is useless. Although sometimes it's tradition best it's simply the best option. For example male soldiers. It's traditional that males fit to defend their families and land - not females - and since men are naturally stronger and tougher and more aggressive than females, it makes sense.

And there are women who are strong, tough and aggressive and so the tradition becomes obsolete, based solely on ancient examples in a senile mind passed onto the next generation where it becomes so utterly useless that the word 'tradition' brings a bitter taste.

[Shaun]

And there are women who are strong, tough and aggressive and so the tradition becomes obsolete, based solely on ancient examples in a senile mind passed onto the next generation where it becomes so utterly useless that the word 'tradition' brings a bitter taste.

Um, men are physically stronger and more aggressive than women in ... what ... 99% of cases? I mean, look at domestic abuse. It's nearly always the man. Quite simply, an adult woman cannot go toe to toe with an adult man. Men are physically stronger and more aggressive. We have like 17 times more testosterone on average than women - and it's testosterone that makes one aggressive and helps the muscles get physically strong. And this isn't only 'ancient' examples, Shyam.

[removeduser_426582376423734]

Not at all.

[neoptolemos]

Not at all.

It depends in what short of tradition you are referring to.
In many aspects,i agree with you it's useless but sometimes tradition maybe useful
Anyway i have watched this excellent video somewhere in TWC i'll post it cause i find it really entertaining

[removeduser_426582376423734]

We were talking about war not a boxing match. If you can carry an SA80 and kill a guy in cold blood you're capable as a soldier. Therefore, the old tradition that man = warrior because it usually did end up in close quarter combat is obsolete with the evolution of weaponry making women as capable as men in a field of battle, Shaun.

[Shaun]

We were talking about war not a boxing match. If you can carry an SA80 and kill a guy in cold blood you're capable as a soldier. Therefore, the old tradition that man = warrior because it usually did end up in close quarter combat is obsolete with the evolution of weaponry making women as capable as men in a field of battle, Shaun.

And if you think this is the extent of being a soldier in modern way, Shyam, then you're sadly mistaken. War still requires aggression, strength and toughness, which men possess more of than women. There is a reason why it's men who still fight on the front line, and men who still sign up far far more than women. It's not just me who thinks this. Of course, should a woman meet the requirements, we'd be foolish to bar them. And indeed, females are allowed in most if not all support roles, just not frontline duty.