4 ms·

> but the fact is that almost all of the world's most influential ideas had been devised in Europe up until WW2, It is difficult to take for a fact vague state

> but the fact is that almost all of the world's most influential ideas had been devised in Europe up until WW2, It is difficult to take for a fact vague statements that make sweeping generalisations without even an outline of the issues at hand. Maybe we should begin by making a list of the world's most influential ideas first?

shantly 7y ago
Hopefully that was intended with the implied restriction "in modernity", i.e. since approximately the lead-up to the Enlightenment, since that'd be a position that could be given a credible defense, at least.
- paganel 7y ago
  Yeah, of course it’s related to cultural “modernity”, before that the great majority of the people could not read and they couldn’t care less about the literary works posted by the OP. Yes, that includes even the Bible, I’d say that the majority of European peasants were de facto pagans until the mid-19th century (when literacy rates started increasing) for in fact they did know how to read the damn thing (and outside of Europe almost nobody cared about the Bible before the 1700s).
paganel 7y ago
We can look at the most influential people of the 20th century then. Leaving aside the Europeans and most of the Northern-Americans (who reguarded themselves as an European cultural colony well into the 20th century, things have started changing only with the 1950s and especially the 1960s), when you see that people like Mao-Zedong, Ho Chi Minh or Pol Pot were either European-educated or greatly influenced by European thinkers and writers (the case for Mao) then you might tone down the “unfounded generalization” accusation a little.
- kranner 7y ago
  Any accusation of "unfounded generalization" -- words that I did not use but that you still put in quotes as if I had -- I may have been making was towards your original point (influential ideas, not people; of all time, not just the 20th century), and not the shifted goalpost. So I don't see how your examples refute the objection in its original context. Second, even in the restricted context, sure many very influential non-Europeans may have been European-educated (as a result of European colonisation), but that doesn't mean you can casually discard the bases of their ideologies that came from their non-European roots. Take the case of Gandhi in India. European-educated for sure, and probably the most influential Indian of the 20th century: but his most influential ideas were distinctly non-European. Third, what about influential people who weren't European-educated or in any obvious way influenced by European thought? Take the case of Abdul Sattar Edhi, considered Pakistan's "most respected" humanitarian (quote from Wikipedia). No European influence in sight. Outside shifting goalposts and cherry-picking, I think your original point was a bit of an overreach. You might as well add most influential in Europe, really. The world is bigger than Europe.

shantly 7y ago

Hopefully that was intended with the implied restriction "in modernity", i.e. since approximately the lead-up to the Enlightenment, since that'd be a position that could be given a credible defense, at least.

paganel 7y ago
Yeah, of course it’s related to cultural “modernity”, before that the great majority of the people could not read and they couldn’t care less about the literary works posted by the OP. Yes, that includes even the Bible, I’d say that the majority of European peasants were de facto pagans until the mid-19th century (when literacy rates started increasing) for in fact they did know how to read the damn thing (and outside of Europe almost nobody cared about the Bible before the 1700s).

paganel 7y ago

We can look at the most influential people of the 20th century then. Leaving aside the Europeans and most of the Northern-Americans (who reguarded themselves as an European cultural colony well into the 20th century, things have started changing only with the 1950s and especially the 1960s), when you see that people like Mao-Zedong, Ho Chi Minh or Pol Pot were either European-educated or greatly influenced by European thinkers and writers (the case for Mao) then you might tone down the “unfounded generalization” accusation a little.

kranner 7y ago
Any accusation of "unfounded generalization" -- words that I did not use but that you still put in quotes as if I had -- I may have been making was towards your original point (influential ideas, not people; of all time, not just the 20th century), and not the shifted goalpost. So I don't see how your examples refute the objection in its original context. Second, even in the restricted context, sure many very influential non-Europeans may have been European-educated (as a result of European colonisation), but that doesn't mean you can casually discard the bases of their ideologies that came from their non-European roots. Take the case of Gandhi in India. European-educated for sure, and probably the most influential Indian of the 20th century: but his most influential ideas were distinctly non-European. Third, what about influential people who weren't European-educated or in any obvious way influenced by European thought? Take the case of Abdul Sattar Edhi, considered Pakistan's "most respected" humanitarian (quote from Wikipedia). No European influence in sight. Outside shifting goalposts and cherry-picking, I think your original point was a bit of an overreach. You might as well add most influential in Europe, really. The world is bigger than Europe.