you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -1 points 10 months ago (6 children)

if it isn’t, in fact, the winter solstice, then it is arbitrary.

That's not true though. The date is significant and not arbitrary, it's just not the winter solstice (anymore).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago (5 children)

    Actually, there is no such thing as a 'winter solstice.' The start of the Northern winter is the start of the Southern summer.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago (4 children)

    Sure. But none of that makes New Years Day arbitrary by virtue of it not being, in fact, the winter solstice.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (3 children)

    If you use the equinoxes or the solstices you're still being arbitrary because there are two of each.

    January 4 is the day of the year that the Earth is closest to the Sun [perihelion] That would be a good date, but there will be those who argue for stating the year when Earth is furthest away.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 10 months ago* (2 children)

    Okay, but why would that mean that New Years Day not being the winter solstice makes it arbitrary to celebrate on Jan 1?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    It's arbitrary because there's no moment that is the obvious beginning of the cycle.

    That's the very definition of 'arbitrary'

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment