4 ms·

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

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.
  - pdonis 7y ago
    > 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 In that respect, no, they weren't. "Western" isn't a binary category. But I do think it's a meaningful one. You appear to think it isn't, so I guess we'll just have to disagree about that.
    - tomlockwood 7y ago
      No, it's not that I think it's not a "meaningful" category, anymore than I think any mythologized and imperfect categorization is. It's that somehow people see Western Civilization as encapsulating certain beliefs, held in certain states, despite the state supposedly having nothing to do with and no power over those beliefs, and even though those people didn't even necessarily have those beliefs that are "western" at the time, and even though many of those beliefs (for instance the rule of law, which arose in the middle east) arose in places that weren't "western". It's that much like the Romans did with the Aeneid, modern true believers in the sanctity of the "west" and the detractors of the "barbarians" mythologize the origins of that conflict.
      - pdonis 7y ago
        Why do you keep talking about states? I might better understand your viewpoint if I understood why you keep focusing on that particular thing.
        tomlockwood 7y ago
        I initially bought up states and their interplay with belief, but I'm hearing that their beliefs simultaneously aren't important, while their belief in non-interference with people's beliefs, is. And I think those contradictory claims are even independently both very interesting given most of the history of "western civilization".
        pdonis 7y ago

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.
- pdonis 7y ago
  > 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 In that respect, no, they weren't. "Western" isn't a binary category. But I do think it's a meaningful one. You appear to think it isn't, so I guess we'll just have to disagree about that.
  - tomlockwood 7y ago
    No, it's not that I think it's not a "meaningful" category, anymore than I think any mythologized and imperfect categorization is. It's that somehow people see Western Civilization as encapsulating certain beliefs, held in certain states, despite the state supposedly having nothing to do with and no power over those beliefs, and even though those people didn't even necessarily have those beliefs that are "western" at the time, and even though many of those beliefs (for instance the rule of law, which arose in the middle east) arose in places that weren't "western". It's that much like the Romans did with the Aeneid, modern true believers in the sanctity of the "west" and the detractors of the "barbarians" mythologize the origins of that conflict.
    - pdonis 7y ago
      Why do you keep talking about states? I might better understand your viewpoint if I understood why you keep focusing on that particular thing.
      - tomlockwood 7y ago
        I initially bought up states and their interplay with belief, but I'm hearing that their beliefs simultaneously aren't important, while their belief in non-interference with people's beliefs, is. And I think those contradictory claims are even independently both very interesting given most of the history of "western civilization".
        pdonis 7y ago