3 ms·

The Western urge for constantly rethinking and reevaluating history and traditions, for innovations in art and science, does not lead to an inherently stable so

The Western urge for constantly rethinking and reevaluating history and traditions, for innovations in art and science, does not lead to an inherently stable society in the long run that spans across centuries. The changes themselves introduce new kinds of problems requiring new solutions, and that affects the societal structure in unpredictable ways. Japan and South Korea are western only in a superficial sense, in that they have copied the basic institutional structure of the industrialised West. However, the main forces acting on that structure are rather different, and the main actor is certainly not the "egoistic, cold, self-interested, autonomous individual".

anovikov 6y ago
If anything, China is an example of a society NOT stable over long term. Here in the West, we basically had two large disturbances in 2000 years: collapse of Western Roman empire (which wasn't even as bad it they made it look because most economy was in the Eastern part of it, that fared reasonably well through that crisis), and Black Death. As a big big stretch, one can also point at Napoleonic Wars and WWII but neither was nearly as bad, not even comparable to the disturbances Chinese society was going through almost every century in the same period. And their collective identity (or huge population) didn't help them fighting wars either, they miserably lost almost every conflict they got in, even ones with themselves.
- alphager 6y ago
  > had two large disturbances in 2000 years Your definition of "large disturbance" is pretty narrow. You missed things like the renaissance, the reformation (and subsequent proliferation of non-catholic faiths), the hundred year war, the thirty year war, two world wars, ...
- YinglingLight 6y ago
  This. The Chinese aren't 'Chinese' from the perspective of a long-term, multi-generational viewer. Not biologically, not societally, not even culturally.
kybernetikos 6y ago
> The Western urge for constantly rethinking and reevaluating history and traditions, for innovations in art and science, does not lead to an inherently stable society in the long run that spans across centuries I'm not clear what you're saying here. Are you saying that it would be a good thing if society in western countries were more like what it was 400 years ago? Enormous improvements in science, technology, culture and civil society grew out of that 400 year history, and regressing or remaining static over that 400 years would be a disaster. The only way to have a stable society that spans across centuries is to have a society that can change and incorporate new ideas, technology, people and ways of doing things. It's societies that aren't flexible and strong enough to cope with change that are unable to remain stable over long periods of time.
- free_rms 6y ago
  China as a nation dealt with 'change' in the form of white men on awesome ships with awesome guns coming and having their way for 100 years. Going from their nadir in WWII to what they are now in 70 years seems awfully adaptable to me.
  - throw0101a 6y ago
    China was at the same level, or higher, in development as Europe in 1600. By 1700, and certainly by 1800, Europe's interest in science, which then led to developments in advances in technology. This technology is what allowed the "white men on awesome ships with awesome guns" to have their way. Perhaps if China was so top-down they could have also developed themselves more. Toby Huff examines this disparity in his books Intellectual Curiosity and the Scientific Revolution. A Global Perspective and The Rise of Early Modern Science: Islam, China and the West. The telescope was embraced in the West, but hardly used (except with a few isolate individuals) in the other major cultures in the 1600s.
    - free_rms 6y ago
      I think it's more about multipolar vs unipolar. The time period you describe includes multiple massive european wars between nation states who were incentivized to improve industrialization, logistics and yes technology. China's periodic bloody uprisings don't create the same incentive, they basically didn't have foreign policy until it came knocking.
throw0101a 6y ago
> The Western urge for constantly rethinking and reevaluating history and traditions, for innovations in art and science, does not lead to an inherently stable society in the long run that spans across centuries. A stable society that spans centuries can stagnate. See Imperial China and Japan before Admiral Perry showed up. In 1600, the Chinese (and Moghul India) were probably more advanced than Europe in many respects, but there seemed to be little to no desire for further development. The telescope, which kicked off a revolution in the West, was basically ignored. When the Jesuits showed up in 1595, the China still thought that the Earth was flat: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth#Ming_Dynasty_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth#Ming_Dynasty_in_Chi... As science developed so did technology, and the European powers were able to basic steam roll over everyone else a century later.
- anovikov 6y ago
  Fantastic! Compare this utterly bullshit Chinese world "map" from 1609: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Sancai_Tuhui_World_Map.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Sancai_T... With Piri Reis map from 100 years before: https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/91XW2CEmU4L._AC_SL1500_.jpg https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/91XW2CEmU4L... (which is a part of an atlas, picturing many areas of the world with literally amazing detail and precision) Granted, Piri Reis did an amazing job, even raising a few conspiracy theories on how he did it, but here is the fairly average European map of the world from 1609: https://www.loc.gov/resource/g3200.ct001217r/ https://www.loc.gov/resource/g3200.ct001217r/

anovikov 6y ago

If anything, China is an example of a society NOT stable over long term. Here in the West, we basically had two large disturbances in 2000 years: collapse of Western Roman empire (which wasn't even as bad it they made it look because most economy was in the Eastern part of it, that fared reasonably well through that crisis), and Black Death. As a big big stretch, one can also point at Napoleonic Wars and WWII but neither was nearly as bad, not even comparable to the disturbances Chinese society was going through almost every century in the same period. And their collective identity (or huge population) didn't help them fighting wars either, they miserably lost almost every conflict they got in, even ones with themselves.

alphager 6y ago
> had two large disturbances in 2000 years Your definition of "large disturbance" is pretty narrow. You missed things like the renaissance, the reformation (and subsequent proliferation of non-catholic faiths), the hundred year war, the thirty year war, two world wars, ...
YinglingLight 6y ago
This. The Chinese aren't 'Chinese' from the perspective of a long-term, multi-generational viewer. Not biologically, not societally, not even culturally.

kybernetikos 6y ago

> The Western urge for constantly rethinking and reevaluating history and traditions, for innovations in art and science, does not lead to an inherently stable society in the long run that spans across centuries I'm not clear what you're saying here. Are you saying that it would be a good thing if society in western countries were more like what it was 400 years ago? Enormous improvements in science, technology, culture and civil society grew out of that 400 year history, and regressing or remaining static over that 400 years would be a disaster. The only way to have a stable society that spans across centuries is to have a society that can change and incorporate new ideas, technology, people and ways of doing things. It's societies that aren't flexible and strong enough to cope with change that are unable to remain stable over long periods of time.

free_rms 6y ago
China as a nation dealt with 'change' in the form of white men on awesome ships with awesome guns coming and having their way for 100 years. Going from their nadir in WWII to what they are now in 70 years seems awfully adaptable to me.
- throw0101a 6y ago
  China was at the same level, or higher, in development as Europe in 1600. By 1700, and certainly by 1800, Europe's interest in science, which then led to developments in advances in technology. This technology is what allowed the "white men on awesome ships with awesome guns" to have their way. Perhaps if China was so top-down they could have also developed themselves more. Toby Huff examines this disparity in his books Intellectual Curiosity and the Scientific Revolution. A Global Perspective and The Rise of Early Modern Science: Islam, China and the West. The telescope was embraced in the West, but hardly used (except with a few isolate individuals) in the other major cultures in the 1600s.
  - free_rms 6y ago
    I think it's more about multipolar vs unipolar. The time period you describe includes multiple massive european wars between nation states who were incentivized to improve industrialization, logistics and yes technology. China's periodic bloody uprisings don't create the same incentive, they basically didn't have foreign policy until it came knocking.

throw0101a 6y ago

> The Western urge for constantly rethinking and reevaluating history and traditions, for innovations in art and science, does not lead to an inherently stable society in the long run that spans across centuries. A stable society that spans centuries can stagnate. See Imperial China and Japan before Admiral Perry showed up. In 1600, the Chinese (and Moghul India) were probably more advanced than Europe in many respects, but there seemed to be little to no desire for further development. The telescope, which kicked off a revolution in the West, was basically ignored. When the Jesuits showed up in 1595, the China still thought that the Earth was flat: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth#Ming_Dynasty_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth#Ming_Dynasty_in_Chi... As science developed so did technology, and the European powers were able to basic steam roll over everyone else a century later.

anovikov 6y ago
Fantastic! Compare this utterly bullshit Chinese world "map" from 1609: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Sancai_Tuhui_World_Map.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Sancai_T... With Piri Reis map from 100 years before: https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/91XW2CEmU4L._AC_SL1500_.jpg https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/91XW2CEmU4L... (which is a part of an atlas, picturing many areas of the world with literally amazing detail and precision) Granted, Piri Reis did an amazing job, even raising a few conspiracy theories on how he did it, but here is the fairly average European map of the world from 1609: https://www.loc.gov/resource/g3200.ct001217r/ https://www.loc.gov/resource/g3200.ct001217r/