What is the West? Is Greece part of the West?

[The Minsky Moment]

The point is that the argument that "Ancient Greece must be considered part of the West because some important Western ideas originated there" is dependent on Ancient Greece actually employing those ideas as central to its identity.  A nodding acquaintance with Ancient Greek history would disabuse one of the notion that Ancient Greece was a democratic polity, or even that its constituent polities were overwhelmingly democratic (in the sense we use that term in "the West").

If "West" is being used in such a way that a liberal democractic state is a pre-requisite for membership, then thus is true, but it is also a far more restrictive use of the term "West" than I understood being set forth in the OP and in most of the dicussion.  It is true by tautology that ancient Greece lacked any modern liberal democratic state. 

[grumbler]

Well so was American citizenship. 

In what was was American citizenship highly exclusive? 

Did we have no concept of popular sovereignty or was that only invented in 1919?

I have no idea what this question is attempting to do.  Are you seriously asking if the concept of popular sovereignty predated 1919? 

I do not get what you are trying to say.  Obviously the Greeks were not modern people with modern sensibilities so I do not see the value of judging them by today's standards of popular sovereignty and the like.

  I am saying that the Ancient Greeks didn't share the values that we consider "Western," by and large, so Ancient Greece should not be considered part of "the West."  Dunno why this is so difficult a concept for some people to grasp.

[Martinus]

For all its Orban idiocy, I would consider Hungary to be the same civilization as well.

I think all of Eastern Europe is now.  It has been since the 19th century in my opinion.

I still think the difference between Latin and Orthodox zones inform the state-religion relationship to a sufficient degree that makes Orthodox-dominated areas a part of a different civilization.

[Martinus]

Well not the universality of human rights, popular sovreignty and the rule of law. Not every thought is a footnote on Plato.

Universality of human rights traces back to Plato and the notion of a universal concept of justice that transcends individual ambition and interest.  Epicurus, on the other hand, saw what we would call utility as paramount, and justice relative, but from a position of equality.  Modern notions of human rights are basically the working out of the dialectical tension between these ideas.

Popular sovereignty traces from the citizen assemblies of the democratic Greek poleis.

Rule of law derives from the example of Sparta, the example of Solon, and the exemplar of Plato's Laws.  Doctrinally, the theory of the rule of law is set forth in Aristotle's Politics.

You could say that almost the entire Western philosophical thought is a discussion with Plato, Aristotle, Socrates and Epicurus.

[PDH]

Too many 

[Sheilbh]

Well, Greek philosophy, Roman law and Judeo-Christian religion are considered to be the three corner-stones of the European civilization, which eventually got to be considered the West. So excluding Greeks would be a bad idea.

I think there's a slight difference with the Greeks though.  There's been huge influence of the actual philosophers but of almost equal importance, I think, has been the Western interest and re-interpretation of the Greek past.  For example the ideas we have of Sparta from a few, non-Spartan, Greek texts that were of huge importance to Rousseau and, I think, Prussia.  I think our relationship with Greek philosophy and history is more of a reflection than Roman law or Judeo-Christian faith, perhaps because it's less fixed and a bit less of a coherent limited thing.

[The Minsky Moment]

From Aristotle: (the Jowett translation, so focus on the gist)

And the rule of the law, it is argued, is preferable to that of any individual. On the same principle, even if it be better for certain individuals to govern, they should be made only guardians and ministers of the law. For magistrates there must be- this is admitted; but then men say that to give authority to any one man when all are equal is unjust. Nay, there may indeed be cases which the law seems unable to determine, but in such cases can a man? Nay, it will be replied, the law trains officers for this express purpose, and appoints them to determine matters which are left undecided by it, to the best of their judgment. Further, it permits them to make any amendment of the existing laws which experience suggests. Therefore he who bids the law rule may be deemed to bid God and Reason alone rule, but he who bids man rule adds an element of the beast; for desire is a wild beast, and passion perverts the minds of rulers, even when they are the best of men. The law is reason unaffected by desire 

[grumbler]

If "West" is being used in such a way that a liberal democractic state is a pre-requisite for membership, then thus is true, but it is also a far more restrictive use of the term "West" than I understood being set forth in the OP and in most of the dicussion.  It is true by tautology that ancient Greece lacked any modern liberal democratic state. 

I don't think the OP defined "the West" and the question was whether "Greece" should be considered a part of the West.  I don't mind the argument that my concept of "the West" is more restrictive than what you would use, so long as you then propose a definition of "the West" yourself, to advance the discussion.  A simple "I think you are wrong" doesn't do much to advance the discussion.  Nor does something along the lines of "If ancient Greece isn't a part of the West, the term the West has no meaning other than to describe relative geographic positions."

[Valmy]

I have no idea what this question is attempting to do.  Are you seriously asking if the concept of popular sovereignty predated 1919? 

No I am pointing out how absurd it would be to clam that.

  I am saying that the Ancient Greeks didn't share the values that we consider "Western," by and large, so Ancient Greece should not be considered part of "the West."  Dunno why this is so difficult a concept for some people to grasp.

I understand that and I think your opinion is just as absurd as claiming the value of popular sovereignty did not exist in the US until it came to full fruition.

[Valmy]

A simple "I think you are wrong" doesn't do much to advance the discussion.

Yeah clearly that is what he is doing.  Go ahead and ignore all the specific philosophers and quotes he is using.  Just stating absurdities like you are doing is far superior.

[grumbler]

I think there's a slight difference with the Greeks though.  There's been huge influence of the actual philosophers but of almost equal importance, I think, has been the Western interest and re-interpretation of the Greek past.  For example the ideas we have of Sparta from a few, non-Spartan, Greek texts that were of huge importance to Rousseau and, I think, Prussia. 

I'll give this some thought; it is an effective counter to my own assertions, if true.

Of course, I am not sure how "Western" Rousseau is! 

[grumbler]

Yeah clearly that is what he is doing.  Go ahead and ignore all the specific philosophers and quotes he is using.  Just stating absurdities like you are doing is far superior.

  Wow.  Since my position (which ignores nothing, because it specifically addresses the philosophers and quotes he is using) pisses you off so much that you have to make this intellectual debate personal, I will say no more.  An idle intellectual debate isn't worth raising people's blood pressure enough to endanger health.

[Razgovory]

Well, Greek philosophy, Roman law and Judeo-Christian religion are considered to be the three corner-stones of the European civilization, which eventually got to be considered the West. So excluding Greeks would be a bad idea.

See that's the problem using this criteria, Russia has all those and it's not considered Western.  The UK does not and is considered Western.

[The Minsky Moment]

so long as you then propose a definition of "the West" yourself, to advance the discussion.

I would say, for the lack of anything better, the "West" corresponds to the distinctive civilizational characteristics of historical socieities within the continent of Europe, continuing up to the present day. 

Stated that way it's a problematic concept because it presumes there are such clearly indentifiable distinctive characteristics and that they can be assigned in a clean way based on some geographic boundary, neither of which is really true.  But that is true of pretty much any definition of West I could think of other than a sharp and arbitrary line drawn on the map.  The advantages of the definition include IMO that it corresponds to the way the term is commonly used (i.e. one that can be inclusive of various disparate historical socieities like the present day USA, Wilhelmine Germany, and Tudor England), and that doesn't decide the question at issue by definition (as would using the term in the manner used today to distinguish the contemporary "West" from Russia, China, etc as a zone of modern liberal democratic states with free market post-industrial economies).

[The Minsky Moment]

See that's the problem using this criteria, Russia has all those and it's not considered Western. 

This is what I mean. 
If West is defined as a particular community of nations in the present day as defined against other states not part of that community than obviously ancient Greece can't be a part of it.  Nor could any other historical state - like the French Third Republic.

Yet the Russia of 2012 has many institutions and characteristics typical of those historically associated with "Western civilization" - including a formally limited government, a constitution guarnteeing individual rights, elections, religious freedom, religious pluralism, extensive private property rights, a private (non-state) press, public and private universities, and so on.

It is part of the "West" in a way that say Saudi Arabia is not.