5 ms·

You're making the claim that cultural beliefs are what's important to Western "civilization" and their interplay with states are irrelevant - and that means tha

You're making the claim that cultural beliefs are what's important to Western "civilization" and their interplay with states are irrelevant - and that means that the process of drawing historical parallels between certain states, like you've done with your 500 AD example, becomes even more perilous and poorly defined. And, at that point, it becomes almost like you could read anything you wanted into history, to the point of it becoming mythology - much like the Romans did with the Aeneid. You're also claiming that tenets of Western Civilization now exist and didn't at some time before, but that there are places that were "Western" even though they didn't hold those tenets, which makes things even more unclear. It seems like there's some lineage of culture that you're seeking to identify, but which doesn't exist as objectively as you'd like. Its also kind of interesting you'd identify individual liberty as one of the tenets of such a mythologised civilisation, when slavery existed in that civilisation for the vast majority of its theorised existence.

pdonis 7y ago
> You're making the claim that cultural beliefs are what's important to Western "civilization" and their interplay with states are irrelevant No, I'm making the claim that one of those cultural beliefs is that the state doesn't tell us what to believe. Of course states exist and we have to deal with them, but that doesn't mean we have to let them tell us what to think. > You're also claiming that tenets of Western Civilization now exist and didn't at some time before I'm claiming that those tenets have evolved over time, so we shouldn't expect to see them in the past in exactly the same form we have them now. But that doesn't mean there's no relationship between the tenets we have now and the ones in the past. > Its also kind of interesting you'd identify individual liberty as one of the tenets of such a mythologised civilisation, when slavery existed in that civilisation for the vast majority of its theorised existence. Yes, the tenet of individual liberty has evolved just like all the others.
- tomlockwood 7y ago
  Since you're claiming that the traits of Western Civilization are subject to evolution, choosing a boundary around certain places as within it and outside it is very arbitrary, and is creating a subjective mythos. > No, I'm making the claim that one of those cultural beliefs is that the state doesn't tell us what to believe. Of course states exist and we have to deal with them, but that doesn't mean we have to let them tell us what to think. So you're saying that state-sponsored non-interference in people's beliefs is an important element of western states :)
  - pdonis 7y ago
    > choosing a boundary around certain places as within it and outside it is very arbitrary Drawing an exact boundary is not possible, but is also not necessary. If you are trying to argue that every single country in the world today embodies a roughly equivalent version of the traits of "Western Civilization", then we evidently don't live on the same planet and there's no point in further discussion. And if you acknowledge that there are significant differences in cultural traits, that it is meaningful to describe certain countries as part of "Western Civilization" due to certain traits, and others not, then what's the point of quibbling about the boundary not being exact down to the last atom? > So you're saying that state-sponsored non-interference in people's beliefs is an important element of western states No, I'm saying that the state simply not interfering in people's beliefs is (supposed to be--again, it's hard to tell these days in many western countries) an important element of western states. The state doesn't have to "sponsor" non-interference; it just has to not interfere. (And this whole idea that the state has to "sponsor" anything significant in a society is also not supposed to be part of Western Civilization.)
    - tomlockwood 7y ago
      > If you are trying to argue that every single country in the world today embodies a roughly equivalent version of the traits of "Western Civilization", then we evidently don't live on the same planet and there's no point in further discussion. Depends on what trait you're talking about. But I also don't believe that there's an objective definition of Western Civilisation, so trying to argue that some country does or does not embody its tenets sufficiently is fruitless - its always arguable. > No, I'm saying that the state simply not interfering in people's beliefs is (supposed to be--again, it's hard to tell these days in many western countries) an important element of western states. The state doesn't have to "sponsor" non-interference; it just has to not interfere. (And this whole idea that the state has to "sponsor" anything significant in a society is also not supposed to be part of Western Civilization.) Awesome, so you're saying that the character of the Roman empire in the 5th Century AD was not Western, given their state-level rejection and criminalisation of paganism.
      - 7y ago

pdonis 7y ago

> You're making the claim that cultural beliefs are what's important to Western "civilization" and their interplay with states are irrelevant No, I'm making the claim that one of those cultural beliefs is that the state doesn't tell us what to believe. Of course states exist and we have to deal with them, but that doesn't mean we have to let them tell us what to think. > You're also claiming that tenets of Western Civilization now exist and didn't at some time before I'm claiming that those tenets have evolved over time, so we shouldn't expect to see them in the past in exactly the same form we have them now. But that doesn't mean there's no relationship between the tenets we have now and the ones in the past. > Its also kind of interesting you'd identify individual liberty as one of the tenets of such a mythologised civilisation, when slavery existed in that civilisation for the vast majority of its theorised existence. Yes, the tenet of individual liberty has evolved just like all the others.

tomlockwood 7y ago
Since you're claiming that the traits of Western Civilization are subject to evolution, choosing a boundary around certain places as within it and outside it is very arbitrary, and is creating a subjective mythos. > No, I'm making the claim that one of those cultural beliefs is that the state doesn't tell us what to believe. Of course states exist and we have to deal with them, but that doesn't mean we have to let them tell us what to think. So you're saying that state-sponsored non-interference in people's beliefs is an important element of western states :)
- pdonis 7y ago
  > choosing a boundary around certain places as within it and outside it is very arbitrary Drawing an exact boundary is not possible, but is also not necessary. If you are trying to argue that every single country in the world today embodies a roughly equivalent version of the traits of "Western Civilization", then we evidently don't live on the same planet and there's no point in further discussion. And if you acknowledge that there are significant differences in cultural traits, that it is meaningful to describe certain countries as part of "Western Civilization" due to certain traits, and others not, then what's the point of quibbling about the boundary not being exact down to the last atom? > So you're saying that state-sponsored non-interference in people's beliefs is an important element of western states No, I'm saying that the state simply not interfering in people's beliefs is (supposed to be--again, it's hard to tell these days in many western countries) an important element of western states. The state doesn't have to "sponsor" non-interference; it just has to not interfere. (And this whole idea that the state has to "sponsor" anything significant in a society is also not supposed to be part of Western Civilization.)
  - tomlockwood 7y ago
    > If you are trying to argue that every single country in the world today embodies a roughly equivalent version of the traits of "Western Civilization", then we evidently don't live on the same planet and there's no point in further discussion. Depends on what trait you're talking about. But I also don't believe that there's an objective definition of Western Civilisation, so trying to argue that some country does or does not embody its tenets sufficiently is fruitless - its always arguable. > No, I'm saying that the state simply not interfering in people's beliefs is (supposed to be--again, it's hard to tell these days in many western countries) an important element of western states. The state doesn't have to "sponsor" non-interference; it just has to not interfere. (And this whole idea that the state has to "sponsor" anything significant in a society is also not supposed to be part of Western Civilization.) Awesome, so you're saying that the character of the Roman empire in the 5th Century AD was not Western, given their state-level rejection and criminalisation of paganism.
    - 7y ago