What do you all consider "The West"? While we all enjoy mocking Marty and Siegy about not being Westerners, this does beg the question. What exactly is the West? When did it start?
I'm a bit different then most and consider the West starting a few centuries after the fall of Rome in Western Europe. I do not consider Ancient Greece or the Roman empire "Western". This may seem odd, but I think I have sound reasoning here. We don't consider Egypt, Syria or Bulgaria "Western", yet their claims to the heritage of Ancient Greece is just as good as say France or the US. What makes the US or France, if anything, closer to Greece and Rome then Egypt and Bulgaria? Nothing I say. So in my opinion the Civilizations of the classical world need their own classification. I suggest the term "Mediterranean Civilization" to describe this civilization rather then the more common "Greco-Roman", to acknowledge the contributions of places like Phoenicia and Carthage.
The exact borders and time periods are bit murky, but that's the general gist of it.
The West is really just the UK, the US, and the English-speaking parts of Canada, and it didn't come into being until after WWII.
OK, not really serious, but if you want a serious answer, I'll have to consider if for a while.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 17, 2012, 08:36:22 PM
What makes the US or France, if anything, closer to Greece and Rome then Egypt and Bulgaria?
I'd say the so-called enlightenment movement.
The West, the civilisation originating from the four fundamental ideas of Levantine Religion, Greek Thought, Roman Law and Germanic Politics which was united by Roman Arms and transmitted through history through the Catholic Church into the hands of the people and thinkers of what is universally acknowledged as the west today.
So, no, Greece used to be part of the west but left it in the Great Schism in 1080.
I think the West's a handy piece of Cold War shorthand :mellow:
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 17, 2012, 08:59:05 PM
I think the West's a handy piece of Cold War shorthand :mellow:
What's replaced it then ?
'The International Community' ?
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 17, 2012, 08:59:05 PM
I think the West's a handy piece of Cold War shorthand :mellow:
Interesting, but not very useful, since the concept predated the Cold war and has survived it.
Culturally and politically, I view the West as the descendents of the Latin-speaking (as opposed to Greek-speaking) portions of the Roman Empire. While it traces its roots to ancient Greece, I don't consider ancient Greece to be "Western" in any significant way.
The concept has evolved, though, to the point where pretty much every free-market, liberal democratic, individualistic society is considered "Western." Korea and Japan, for instance, aren't "Western" in culture, but they are still considered "Western" by most people, I would think.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 17, 2012, 08:36:22 PM
What do you all consider "The West"?
Countries that are part of Latin tech group.
Quote from: grumbler on January 17, 2012, 09:10:49 PM
Interesting, but not very useful, since the concept predated the Cold war and has survived it.
What examples have you of it pre-dating it?
QuoteThe concept has evolved, though, to the point where pretty much every free-market, liberal democratic, individualistic society is considered "Western." Korea and Japan, for instance, aren't "Western" in culture, but they are still considered "Western" by most people, I would think.
I think this is how it's evolved. It's expanded to include those countries as Western, but also countries that weren't previously 'western' like those of Central or Eastern Europe.
Quote from: Maximus on January 17, 2012, 08:48:17 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 17, 2012, 08:36:22 PM
What makes the US or France, if anything, closer to Greece and Rome then Egypt and Bulgaria?
I'd say the so-called enlightenment movement.
It's not so-called and it's not a movement. It is The Enlightenment (tm) (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/enlightenment/) and it is the true bearer of the good that exists in the world today and is at the heart of the west. We (the west) do also carry some ancient and much evil philosophical baggage expounded by the pre-moderns, rationalists, romantics and other anti-reason and anti-individual thinkers.
The Enlightenment is ultimately what separates us from the non-us.
The west is Christendom.
Excepting of course recent converts in Africa and Asia, the Phillipines, and Ethiopia which wasn't historically regarded as such.
Also excluded is Russia, being a beast unto itself.
This isn't to say of course that christianity is important to what the west is in this day and age, it is however a handy way to describe its boundaries. Basically Europe and its descendant nations.
Quote from: Tyr on January 17, 2012, 09:42:57 PM
The west is Christendom.
Excepting of course recent converts in Africa and Asia, the Phillipines, and Ethiopia which wasn't historically regarded as such.
Also excluded is Russia, being a beast unto itself.
This isn't to say of course that christianity is important to what the west is in this day and age, it is however a handy way to describe its boundaries. Basically Europe and its descendant nations.
Ethiopia is historically Christian.
The Greeks are Turks. No Turks are part of the subset of humanity known as "the West," unless they are fully assimilated.
Of course the antecedents of the modern West are not part of that modern idea, but to exclude Greece, the Levant, hell even the Fertile Crescent of 7000 years ago takes an organizing concept and removes it from history.
The West is a process, not so much a thing. Depending on one's organizing factors, several wide-ranging definitions could be drawn. Really, it is like finding a starting date for some historical epoch without understanding that this is a moving target depending on what criteria one uses.
Divorcing the present from the past leads to Rick Perry style history.
Quote from: grumbler on January 17, 2012, 09:10:49 PM
Korea and Japan, for instance, aren't "Western" in culture, but they are still considered "Western" by most people, I would think.
Who are these people?
I consider Greece part of the "West" until the Middle Ages. The Great Schism I guess is as good a date as any. But certainly once they become part of the Ottoman Empire they cease to be part of the same culture. But really it is just a matter of taste.
Really the "West" is a pretty arbitrary term. Which is why I find Niall Ferguson annoying.
Quote from: PDH on January 17, 2012, 10:26:51 PM
Of course the antecedents of the modern West are not part of that modern idea, but to exclude Greece, the Levant, hell even the Fertile Crescent of 7000 years ago takes an organizing concept and removes it from history.
The West is a process, not so much a thing. Depending on one's organizing factors, several wide-ranging definitions could be drawn. Really, it is like finding a starting date for some historical epoch without understanding that this is a moving target depending on what criteria one uses.
Divorcing the present from the past leads to Rick Perry style history.
The west started on July 27 1656 if it started on any date. It is a set of ideas named by a direction. That seems just silly. The West is the catchment area of the Enlightenment the values, ideas and merits of the west are the values, ideas and merits of the Enlightenment.
Quote from: Viking on January 17, 2012, 10:37:30 PM
The west started on July 27 1656 if it started on any date.
The 8th Anniversary of the Treaty of Westphalia party?
Quote from: Viking on January 17, 2012, 09:19:20 PM
Quote from: Maximus on January 17, 2012, 08:48:17 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 17, 2012, 08:36:22 PM
What makes the US or France, if anything, closer to Greece and Rome then Egypt and Bulgaria?
I'd say the so-called enlightenment movement.
It's not so-called and it's not a movement. It is The Enlightenment (tm) (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/enlightenment/) and it is the true bearer of the good that exists in the world today and is at the heart of the west. We (the west) do also carry some ancient and much evil philosophical baggage expounded by the pre-moderns, rationalists, romantics and other anti-reason and anti-individual thinkers.
The Enlightenment is ultimately what separates us from the non-us.
The problem is that the Ancient Greeks were not particularly close to ideals of the Enlightenment.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 17, 2012, 09:18:06 PM
Interesting, but not very useful, since the concept predated the Cold war and has survived it.
What examples have you of it pre-dating it?
[/quote]
Well, Oswald Spengler was talking about the "Decline of the West" by during WWI. That kinda predates the Cold War.
Quote from: Viking on January 17, 2012, 09:19:20 PM
It's not so-called and it's not a movement. It is The Enlightenment (tm) (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/enlightenment/) and it is the true bearer of the good that exists in the world today and is at the heart of the west. We (the west) do also carry some ancient and much evil philosophical baggage expounded by the pre-moderns, rationalists, romantics and other anti-reason and anti-individual thinkers.
The Enlightenment is ultimately what separates us from the non-us.
Perhaps movement is not the right word. A golden age of philosophy and learning. I'm not disparaging it, it was a time of enlightenment and I agree it is what defines "The West", but it is hardly unique in the history of the world.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 17, 2012, 11:06:38 PM
The problem is that the Ancient Greeks were not particularly close to ideals of the Enlightenment.
In general? Because the culture and political systems the Enlightenment originated in was not particularly close to those ideals either. We are talking about intellectual elites in both cases.
We are?
QuoteEthiopia is historically Christian.
It was. But not regarded as part of Christendom. It was pretty unknown and out of the way.
Quote from: Valmy on January 17, 2012, 10:42:45 PM
Quote from: Viking on January 17, 2012, 10:37:30 PM
The west started on July 27 1656 if it started on any date.
The 8th Anniversary of the Treaty of Westphalia party?
The Excommunication of Spinoza.
Quote from: Maximus on January 17, 2012, 11:12:18 PM
Quote from: Viking on January 17, 2012, 09:19:20 PM
It's not so-called and it's not a movement. It is The Enlightenment (tm) (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/enlightenment/) and it is the true bearer of the good that exists in the world today and is at the heart of the west. We (the west) do also carry some ancient and much evil philosophical baggage expounded by the pre-moderns, rationalists, romantics and other anti-reason and anti-individual thinkers.
The Enlightenment is ultimately what separates us from the non-us.
Perhaps movement is not the right word. A golden age of philosophy and learning. I'm not disparaging it, it was a time of enlightenment and I agree it is what defines "The West", but it is hardly unique in the history of the world.
It's a set of values and ideas. These Ideas are both unique to the west and central to it's ideals. It is on "a" time of enlightenment it is "The Enlightenment". This was not a generic golden age of peace power and prosperity but rather the formation of western values.
The Enlightenment created the specific western views on the Individual, Science, Law and Politics. You do not have non-western societies freeing the slaves "because they are humans too". You do not have non-western societies permitting the peaceful abolishment of cherished dogma by those who prove those dogmas wrong. You do not have non-western societies having judging authorities independent from political authorities. You do not have non-western societies resting ultimate political power in the people themselves.
These are uniquely western ideas. I'll agree that many try to emulate them. I'll just suggest that if you successfully emulate them you join the west; and I'll suggest that you can't join the west without adopting them.
Quote from: Viking on January 18, 2012, 02:12:33 AM
It's a set of values and ideas. These Ideas are both unique to the west and central to it's ideals. It is on "a" time of enlightenment it is "The Enlightenment". This was not a generic golden age of peace power and prosperity but rather the formation of western values.
The Enlightenment created the specific western views on the Individual, Science, Law and Politics. You do not have non-western societies freeing the slaves "because they are humans too". You do not have non-western societies permitting the peaceful abolishment of cherished dogma by those who prove those dogmas wrong. You do not have non-western societies having judging authorities independent from political authorities. You do not have non-western societies resting ultimate political power in the people themselves.
These are uniquely western ideas. I'll agree that many try to emulate them. I'll just suggest that if you successfully emulate them you join the west; and I'll suggest that you can't join the west without adopting them.
Really? You don't? What about the numerous steps toward abolition in the late Roman empire? What about the many Papal edicts banning slavery? I'm not sure what you mean by judging authorities independent of political authorities. I mean, they had that in the Middle Ages as well. Church courts were typically independent of the local King, and were considered fairer then Royal or noble courts in the Middle Ages. One of the benefits of being literate is that you could get "benefit of Clergy" and have the right to be tried by religious authorities rather then secular ones. Jews often had their own legal courts in the Ghetto as well.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 17, 2012, 11:10:49 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 17, 2012, 09:18:06 PM
Interesting, but not very useful, since the concept predated the Cold war and has survived it.
What examples have you of it pre-dating it?
Well, Oswald Spengler was talking about the "Decline of the West" by during WWI. That kinda predates the Cold War.
[/quote]
What did the concept mean to him? Wasn't he rather Ezra Pound-ish in his views, you know borderline insane but weirdly interesting?
Oswald Spengler called his work "Der Untergang des Abendlandes" = Decline of the Occident.
Quote from: Viking on January 17, 2012, 08:48:32 PM
The West, the civilisation originating from the four fundamental ideas of Levantine Religion, Greek Thought, Roman Law and Germanic Politics which was united by Roman Arms and transmitted through history through the Catholic Church into the hands of the people and thinkers of what is universally acknowledged as the west today.
:thumbsup:
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 17, 2012, 09:18:06 PM
Quote from: grumbler on January 17, 2012, 09:10:49 PM
Interesting, but not very useful, since the concept predated the Cold war and has survived it.
What examples have you of it pre-dating it?
QuoteOH, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet,
Till Earth and Sky stand presently at God's great Judgment Seat;
But there is neither East nor West, Border, nor Breed, nor Birth,
When two strong men stand face to face, tho' they come from the ends of the earth!
- R. Kipling 1889
Quote from: PDH on January 17, 2012, 10:26:51 PM
Of course the antecedents of the modern West are not part of that modern idea, but to exclude Greece, the Levant, hell even the Fertile Crescent of 7000 years ago takes an organizing concept and removes it from history.
The West is a process, not so much a thing. Depending on one's organizing factors, several wide-ranging definitions could be drawn. Really, it is like finding a starting date for some historical epoch without understanding that this is a moving target depending on what criteria one uses.
Divorcing the present from the past leads to Rick Perry style history.
Well-done! You include a number of concepts here, and add reasonable language, and in the end I have not a clue as to what your point is. :D
+4 Keyboard of Obfuscation.
Quote from: grumbler on January 18, 2012, 07:45:18 AM
Well-done! You include a number of concepts here, and add reasonable language, and in the end I have not a clue as to what your point is. :D
+4 Keyboard of Obfuscation.
No need to try and teach Languish, it is a worthless goal. Therefore, I just say stuff.
Quote from: Viking on January 18, 2012, 02:12:33 AM
It's a set of values and ideas. These Ideas are both unique to the west and central to it's ideals. It is on "a" time of enlightenment it is "The Enlightenment". This was not a generic golden age of peace power and prosperity but rather the formation of western values.
The Enlightenment created the specific western views on the Individual, Science, Law and Politics. You do not have non-western societies freeing the slaves "because they are humans too". You do not have non-western societies permitting the peaceful abolishment of cherished dogma by those who prove those dogmas wrong. You do not have non-western societies having judging authorities independent from political authorities. You do not have non-western societies resting ultimate political power in the people themselves.
These are uniquely western ideas. I'll agree that many try to emulate them. I'll just suggest that if you successfully emulate them you join the west; and I'll suggest that you can't join the west without adopting them.
It is unique to the modern west. You can call it "The Modern Western Enlightenment" if you wish, but outside that context it remains a period of enlightenment.
Quote from: Maximus on January 18, 2012, 08:52:54 AM
Quote from: Viking on January 18, 2012, 02:12:33 AM
It's a set of values and ideas. These Ideas are both unique to the west and central to it's ideals. It is on "a" time of enlightenment it is "The Enlightenment". This was not a generic golden age of peace power and prosperity but rather the formation of western values.
The Enlightenment created the specific western views on the Individual, Science, Law and Politics. You do not have non-western societies freeing the slaves "because they are humans too". You do not have non-western societies permitting the peaceful abolishment of cherished dogma by those who prove those dogmas wrong. You do not have non-western societies having judging authorities independent from political authorities. You do not have non-western societies resting ultimate political power in the people themselves.
These are uniquely western ideas. I'll agree that many try to emulate them. I'll just suggest that if you successfully emulate them you join the west; and I'll suggest that you can't join the west without adopting them.
It is unique to the modern west. You can call it "The Modern Western Enlightenment" if you wish, but outside that context it remains a period of enlightenment.
Yes, if you disregard everything that makes the period and it's ideas characteristic then, yes, it is a merely generic golden age. It is "The Enlightenment" not because it was a period of new ideas and progress, it is called "The Enlightenment" because the ideas and values of the period were about the enlightenment of the individual. "An" vs. "The" geddit?
People will argue about anything.
Quote from: Viking on January 18, 2012, 10:10:54 AM
Yes, if you disregard everything that makes the period and it's ideas characteristic then, yes, it is a merely generic golden age. It is "The Enlightenment" not because it was a period of new ideas and progress, it is called "The Enlightenment" because the ideas and values of the period were about the enlightenment of the individual. "An" vs. "The" geddit?
Incidentally where are these slave releases, peaceful abolishments and the like in the 17th century?
Quote from: Razgovory on January 18, 2012, 10:53:54 AM
Quote from: Viking on January 18, 2012, 10:10:54 AM
Yes, if you disregard everything that makes the period and it's ideas characteristic then, yes, it is a merely generic golden age. It is "The Enlightenment" not because it was a period of new ideas and progress, it is called "The Enlightenment" because the ideas and values of the period were about the enlightenment of the individual. "An" vs. "The" geddit?
Incidentally where are these slave releases, peaceful abolishments and the like in the 17th century?
Why would you expect such releases to happen before the enlightenment actually took political control of ancien regiemes? Stop being a dick.
Quote from: Maximus on January 18, 2012, 11:09:51 AM
Quote from: Viking on January 18, 2012, 10:10:54 AM
"An" vs. "The" geddit?
I disagree, geddit?
Stand by for heavy seas! :lol:
I tend to agree with you that "The Enlightenment" is as much a misnomer as "The Renaissance" since the period of enlightenment and that of the rebirth never ended. However, as popular (rather than strictly rational) terms, "The Enlightenment" and "The Renaissance" had end dates.
The key idea of the Enlightenment was not, in my opinion, that it was "about the enlightenment of the individual" (which it only was as a byproduct of its main idea), but that reason should be used to solve social and philosophical problems, not traditions, customs, or religion.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 17, 2012, 11:06:38 PM
The problem is that the Ancient Greeks were not particularly close to ideals of the Enlightenment.
The argument has been made that one of the factors which lead to the Enlightenment was the rediscovery of the Greek classics by the "West".
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 18, 2012, 12:18:17 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 17, 2012, 11:06:38 PM
The problem is that the Ancient Greeks were not particularly close to ideals of the Enlightenment.
The argument has been made that one of the factors which lead to the Enlightenment was the rediscovery of the Greek classics by the "West".
Yes, Thomas Aquinas and Peter Abelard started The Enlightenment back in the 13th century with their newly rediscovered Greek Classics. Reality never does fit on the back of an envelope.
No, The Enlightenment doesn't start until there are social, economic and political conditions permitting laymen to use philosophy. It's not the greek classics that start the reneissance, it is the inflow of really cool and hip greek artists, poets and authors into italy after the fall of the byzantine empire coupled with rich independent italian cities with cash to spend on art and culture. It's when the Reneissance Humanists realize that they can't use Aristotle to prove God (like they could with Plato) that the Enlightenment starts. First with courageous individuals who are not afrait to speak out despite the threats from theocrats or are protected by enlightened (note the lower case "e") rulers.
The Enlightenment starts when thinkers start trying to answer the questions that had religious answers without referring to God. During the reformation these people were in hiding or burned or made to recant. 200 years pass between the start of The Reneissance and the start of The Enlightenment.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 18, 2012, 12:18:17 PM
The argument has been made that one of the factors which lead to the Enlightenment was the rediscovery of the Greek classics by the "West".
I think rather it was the ability for those classics to be printed and thus widely distributed.
Quote from: Valmy on January 18, 2012, 01:37:58 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 18, 2012, 12:18:17 PM
The argument has been made that one of the factors which lead to the Enlightenment was the rediscovery of the Greek classics by the "West".
I think rather it was the ability for those classics to be printed and thus widely distributed.
A lot of blame gets taken by this whole printing thing.
The Romans considered Greece eastern. IMO, the West descends from the Western Empire and the East from the Byzantine and Russia. The Far East is something else entirely.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 18, 2012, 01:50:51 PM
The Romans considered Greece eastern. IMO, the West descends from the Western Empire and the East from the Byzantine and Russia. The Far East is something else entirely.
Yeah that was basically what I was getting at with the Middle Ages being the point Greece stops being part of the same civilization.
But surely before then it was. I mean surely the Romans did not consider their neighbors to the south, who they had lived next door to for centuries, to be some sort of weird eastern civilization.
Quote from: Viking on January 18, 2012, 12:42:50 PM
Yes, Thomas Aquinas and Peter Abelard started The Enlightenment back in the 13th century with their newly rediscovered Greek Classics. Reality never does fit on the back of an envelope.
No, The Enlightenment doesn't start until there are social, economic and political conditions permitting laymen to use philosophy. It's not the greek classics that start the reneissance, it is the inflow of really cool and hip greek artists, poets and authors into italy after the fall of the byzantine empire coupled with rich independent italian cities with cash to spend on art and culture. It's when the Reneissance Humanists realize that they can't use Aristotle to prove God (like they could with Plato) that the Enlightenment starts. First with courageous individuals who are not afrait to speak out despite the threats from theocrats or are protected by enlightened (note the lower case "e") rulers.
The Enlightenment starts when thinkers start trying to answer the questions that had religious answers without referring to God. During the reformation these people were in hiding or burned or made to recant. 200 years pass between the start of The Reneissance and the start of The Enlightenment.
I am sorta curious: where did you learn this concept that the Renaissance lasted until start of the Enlightenment (if not beyond)? Was this something you were taught in a US school, or a European one? I've not run across this concept before.
The italicized part also interests me. It seems to imply that the first Enlightenment thinkers were protected by "enlightened" rulers, which would indicate that the enlightenment of the rulers preceded the development of the first Enlightenment thinkers. I've not heard of that theory, either.
The Romans considered the Greeks "a people valiant in words rather than in deeds" (to my way of thinking, blowhards living in the past) than real outsiders. Time and time again the Romans recognized their debt to the Greeks in many areas, but that the Greek time had passed.
Quote from: Valmy on January 18, 2012, 01:52:01 PM
But surely before then it was. I mean surely the Romans did not consider their neighbors to the south, who they had lived next door to for centuries, to be some sort of weird eastern civilization.
The Romans considered Greek to be the language of civilized people. One of the damaging attacks made against Marius at his height of power was that he spoke Greek poorly.
Quote from: Viking on January 18, 2012, 11:00:18 AM
Why would you expect such releases to happen before the enlightenment actually took political control of ancien regiemes? Stop being a dick.
You said that it started with the excommunication of Spinoza, and then give a bunch of events that could only happen because of the enlightenment. So it's fair to ask, why aren't they actually occurring in the time period you gave us? And yeah, several of the ancien regiemes took the ideals of the enlightenment to heart. Several monarchs tried to govern according to these ideals, which is why they are called "enlightened despots". In fact, you see many of the
opposite effects occurring during this period. Such as strong centralized control, Royal Absolutism, and and increased use of slave labor.
Quote from: grumbler on January 18, 2012, 01:59:23 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 18, 2012, 01:52:01 PM
But surely before then it was. I mean surely the Romans did not consider their neighbors to the south, who they had lived next door to for centuries, to be some sort of weird eastern civilization.
The Romans considered Greek to be the language of civilized people. One of the damaging attacks made against Marius at his height of power was that he spoke Greek poorly.
That's almost the inverse of the attacks on those republican candidates for speaking French and Chinese.
Quote from: Viking on January 18, 2012, 12:42:50 PM
Yes, Thomas Aquinas and Peter Abelard started The Enlightenment back in the 13th century with their newly rediscovered Greek Classics. Reality never does fit on the back of an envelope.
No, The Enlightenment doesn't start until there are social, economic and political conditions permitting laymen to use philosophy. It's not the greek classics that start the reneissance, it is the inflow of really cool and hip greek artists, poets and authors into italy after the fall of the byzantine empire coupled with rich independent italian cities with cash to spend on art and culture. It's when the Reneissance Humanists realize that they can't use Aristotle to prove God (like they could with Plato) that the Enlightenment starts. First with courageous individuals who are not afrait to speak out despite the threats from theocrats or are protected by enlightened (note the lower case "e") rulers.
The Enlightenment starts when thinkers start trying to answer the questions that had religious answers without referring to God. During the reformation these people were in hiding or burned or made to recant. 200 years pass between the start of The Reneissance and the start of The Enlightenment.
I refer you back to the observation made by PDH that the change in thinking was a process. He used bigger words.
Quote from: Valmy on January 18, 2012, 01:52:01 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 18, 2012, 01:50:51 PM
The Romans considered Greece eastern. IMO, the West descends from the Western Empire and the East from the Byzantine and Russia. The Far East is something else entirely.
Yeah that was basically what I was getting at with the Middle Ages being the point Greece stops being part of the same civilization.
But surely before then it was. I mean surely the Romans did not consider their neighbors to the south, who they had lived next door to for centuries, to be some sort of weird eastern civilization.
The thing is, Greece didn't make the change. It was the West that changed.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 18, 2012, 04:59:20 PM
The thing is, Greece didn't make the change. It was the West that changed.
Greece changed pretty dramatically. Hordes of Slavs and Arabs overrunning your territory will do that.
Quote from: Valmy on January 19, 2012, 01:39:42 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 18, 2012, 04:59:20 PM
The thing is, Greece didn't make the change. It was the West that changed.
Greece changed pretty dramatically. Hordes of Slavs and Arabs overrunning your territory will do that.
I think his point was that Greece didn't go through the same changes that occurred in other countries that were heirs to Greco-Roman culture, such as France or Italy, not that it hasn't changed at all since Classic times.
Quote from: dps on January 19, 2012, 10:25:58 AM
I think his point was that Greece didn't go through the same changes that occurred in other countries that were heirs to Greco-Roman culture, such as France or Italy, not that it hasn't changed at all since Classic times.
Where are you getting this from? Syria was also a country that was an heir to Greco-Roman culture and it also had changes different form Greece. I mean that is obvious. But I do not get the distinction that the West 'make the change' whereas the changes elsewhere were not 'the change'. Not 'a different change' but 'the change'.
And somehow this is a point that says something about Greece being part of the West prior to the Middle Ages. What exactly I do not know.
Quote from: Valmy on January 19, 2012, 10:42:55 AM
Quote from: dps on January 19, 2012, 10:25:58 AM
I think his point was that Greece didn't go through the same changes that occurred in other countries that were heirs to Greco-Roman culture, such as France or Italy, not that it hasn't changed at all since Classic times.
Where are you getting this from? Syria was also a country that was an heir to Greco-Roman culture and it also had changes different form Greece. I mean that is obvious. But I do not get the distinction that the West 'make the change' whereas the changes elsewhere were not 'the change'. Not 'a different change' but 'the change'.
And somehow this is a point that says something about Greece being part of the West prior to the Middle Ages. What exactly I do not know.
I guess I should let Raz answer for himself, but I took his point to be that Greece (and other formerly Roman areas such as Syria) didn't go through (or share in) the Renaissance and Enlightenment.
My point was why should we assume that we are more "Greek", the the Greeks are? If ancient Greece was indeed the cradle of Western culture, why is only Western Europe worthy to be heirs of this intellectual heritage? Why not other areas that Greece influence like Egypt, or Bulgaria, or Syria or even Greece itself? I'd say that Greece influence Syria far more then it influence the UK. After all, the Greeks ruled Syria for quite some time.
What I think is that during the Renaissance Western Europe developed a sort of inferiority complex toward the Classical world. Nothing they could do, or ever did would ever equal the accomplishments of the ancient world. As such they started to define the history of Europe as one of a light civilized classical world, followed by a nasty dark middle age, followed by a rebirth of the classical culture. Scholars who only had a handful of classical texts (which is still pretty much all we have), developed a somewhat skewed view of the classical world (which I also think we also still have), and craved to be part of this beautiful ancient society. They would look at the solemn, majestic and sterile ruins of classical cities and temples and then to the garbage strewn cities of their present and decide that these ruined cities were what they liked much better. It was this desire to make Greece ours that made people include ancient Greece as part of the West if not the source of the West.
Of course this causes a problem today. Greece doesn't look much like the West. You (Valmy), suggest this is because Greece went off on it's own direction at some point. I think this view is silly and slightly chauvinistic. Why assume that Greece shifted away from the culture they started? Especially when the other cultures influenced were influenced by Greece were closer to what the Greeks were doing at the time (and are to some extent still are). The shift I would say, lies not in the Greeks. But in western Europe and by extension, Greece was never part of cultural sphere we call "The West".
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2012, 12:16:13 PM
My point was why should we assume that we are more "Greek", the the Greeks are? If ancient Greece was indeed the cradle of Western culture, why is only Western Europe worthy to be heirs of this intellectual heritage? Why not other areas that Greece influence like Egypt, or Bulgaria, or Syria or even Greece itself?
Your answer is probably found by looking at who ruled Bulgaria, Syria and Greece itself during the time Europe started making great strides. The answer to your question is probably the same as the answer to the question of why a rather advanced Islamic society came to be dominated by what had been a rather rude and backward Europe.
But I dont see what that answer has to do with the impact of the Greek classics on modern western thought.
You're wrong on the Renaissance. They didn't feel inferior. The Medieval world felt inferior, in some ways, but one of the marks of the Renaissance is a certain intellectual self-confidence. For example Petrarch wrote a series of letters to Cicero, as a friend. He was not only equal to, but corresponding with, the Classical world. That sort of intimacy is unimaginable in the Medieval period.
Similarly you have to remember that the 'Renaissance' and the 'dark middle ages' are both Renaissance concepts. I actually think they both come from Petrarch, but I could be wrong. This was how they defined themselves. Their narrative of history was of a debased, dark age between the classical world and their rebirth. It was only in their era that Europe was moving from darkness into light and was beginning to equal and in some ways surpass the achievements of the ancients - this is especially reflected in the visual arts. Of course all of this is dubious but it's how the Renaissance saw itself and described itself to us.
An example of this self-confidence is the rash of new translations and editions of the Bible that emerge or are being worked on in the Renaissance. With that translation work you have the start of Biblical criticism which, again, starts from an assumption of equality rather than the inferiority you've suggested.
The Greeks matter to the Renaissance. Plato is rediscovered, I think the literature becomes available for the first time too. But, a lot of Renaissance thought is actually far more Roman. The Medieval schoolsmen were far more exclusively interested in Aristotle and Arabic interpretations of certain Greeks.
How does what you said make me wrong? Didnt you just confirm what I said?
Who ruled Greece Bulgaria and Syria while Europe was making its transition to and going through the Renaissance?
I don't think they saw themselves as equal to ancient Greece. People were still arguing that they could never surpass the classical age as late as the 18th century. See Swift's Battle of the Books.
You posted while I was writing that. I was responding to Raz.
As I've said I think the West's a pretty modern concept that's meant and means different things at different times.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 19, 2012, 12:31:19 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2012, 12:16:13 PM
My point was why should we assume that we are more "Greek", the the Greeks are? If ancient Greece was indeed the cradle of Western culture, why is only Western Europe worthy to be heirs of this intellectual heritage? Why not other areas that Greece influence like Egypt, or Bulgaria, or Syria or even Greece itself?
Your answer is probably found by looking at who ruled Bulgaria, Syria and Greece itself during the time Europe started making great strides. The answer to your question is probably the same as the answer to the question of why a rather advanced Islamic society came to be dominated by what had been a rather rude and backward Europe.
But I dont see what that answer has to do with the impact of the Greek classics on modern western thought.
Valmy was talking about the great schizim, so this is before Europe leaped ahead. My post was addressing his statement. I ask you though, why is Islamic society not the heir to Greece but Western Europe is?
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2012, 12:43:20 PM
I don't think they saw themselves as equal to ancient Greece. People were still arguing that they could never surpass the classical age as late as the 18th century. See Swift's Battle of the Books.
What do you think's suggested by the Battle of the Books?
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2012, 12:50:50 PM
Valmy was talking about the great schizim, so this is before Europe leaped ahead. My post was addressing his statement. I ask you though, why is Islamic society not the heir to Greece but Western Europe is?
That is another whole kettle of philosophers. The tradition of Islamic scholarship had specific trouble with some/much of the ancients, bringing the thought in line with the religion. Attempts to do so were seen as (at least) problematic or (at worst) heretical.
The High Middle Ages saw syncretism of the (rediscovered) ancient greek philosophy within Christian thought, laying the scholastic groundwork for greater growth.
The Christians saw ancient greek works as a foundation, the Muslims saw it as important but not always within the realm of accepted thought.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 19, 2012, 12:51:42 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2012, 12:43:20 PM
I don't think they saw themselves as equal to ancient Greece. People were still arguing that they could never surpass the classical age as late as the 18th century. See Swift's Battle of the Books.
What do you think's suggested by the Battle of the Books?
That there were people who still believe that the modern era couldn't compete with the classical in terms of quality of ideas. Otherwise, why write a satire attacking this position?
Quote from: PDH on January 19, 2012, 12:59:38 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2012, 12:50:50 PM
Valmy was talking about the great schizim, so this is before Europe leaped ahead. My post was addressing his statement. I ask you though, why is Islamic society not the heir to Greece but Western Europe is?
That is another whole kettle of philosophers. The tradition of Islamic scholarship had specific trouble with some/much of the ancients, bringing the thought in line with the religion. Attempts to do so were seen as (at least) problematic or (at worst) heretical.
The High Middle Ages saw syncretism of the (rediscovered) ancient greek philosophy within Christian thought, laying the scholastic groundwork for greater growth.
The Christians saw ancient greek works as a foundation, the Muslims saw it as important but not always within the realm of accepted thought.
Eh, I think you misunderstand how Muslims viewed the world. They didn't recognize people prior to Mohamed as "pagan", in the same way as Christians did. People who lived prior to Mohamed were often considered good Muslims as well. They simply didn't have access to the words of the final prophet. Christians developed a similar idea for righteous pagans and the like. People like Moses and Socrates still went to Hell, but it was a nicer part of Hell.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2012, 01:05:44 PM
Eh, I think you misunderstand how Muslims viewed the world. They didn't recognize people prior to Mohamed as "pagan", in the same way as Christians did. People who lived prior to Mohamed were often considered good Muslims as well. They simply didn't have access to the words of the final prophet. Christians developed a similar idea for righteous pagans and the like. People like Moses and Socrates still went to Hell, but it was a nicer part of Hell.
Eh, I think you haven't read about various Muslim scholars who attempted to bring Aristotle into the Islamic canon in the time period around 1000 CE and who were denounced as anti-Islamic, forced to recant or killed. They saved the works of Aristotle, but they could not base much new thought on him after this period because of Muslim retrenchments and attacks against too worldly scholars.
My point was that the Greek philosophy was increasingly seen as a not a proper foundation in the Muslim world.
This Muslim view on their pre-Muslim ancestors is something that I read about from other Muslims. I found it strange, but didn't question it. The Christian West tended to strip the religious significance from the ancient Greek authors (and much of ancient Greek and Roman culture all together). It gave an impression of secularism that I don't think was actually there. For instance, much of Greek moral philosophy arose to solve perceived deficiencies in the Greek religious practices.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2012, 01:00:52 PM
That there were people who still believe that the modern era couldn't compete with the classical in terms of quality of ideas. Otherwise, why write a satire attacking this position?
I don't think it attacks it. It's an inconclusive, mock-epic I think the satire is on the pointlessness of the argument and intellectual dispute at all.
The argument existed and was possibly even popular (I think it was very furiously held in France) but that doesn't mean a great deal. Although I do think it was that they hadn't surpassed the ancients, not that they never could.
What I mean is that in the Renaissance you have the idea that they're picking up where the ancients left off and they do so on their own terms. So you have the slow triumph of the vernacular as a language worthy of poetry, philosophy and thought as opposed to just entertainment. That's a shift from the Medieval. But you also have a growth in Classical learning. Greek returns in the Renaissance to a far greater degree, so scholars are engaging with Classical texts in their own language rather than first or second hand in Latin from Arabic and so on. Which changes the dynamic, there's less distance. The Renaissance scholar is in a far greater position to actually the Classics.
This shift is seen in a few places. The most obvious is that scientific knowledge does surpass the Ancients. The Ptolemaic system is overturned. The Americas are discovered. Euclid's mathematics are updated and his optics hugely altered. Similarly all over the Christian world errors are discovered in the translations of the Bible and the lazy assumptions, based on deference, made by the Medievals. The Renaissance can correct these errors, they can see the Ancients were not infallible and the engage with them as equals.
But the self-confidence is also reflected in things like poetry. Paradise Lost is an attempt to surpass Homer. Milton is writing an English poem that will meet the achievements of a Classical epic but also has the divine truth of Christianity which makes the Renaissance greater than the Classical world. There is none of the deference to the Classics that previously existed. Homer was a great poet, Milton will be a great poet. More generally you see this with the way young poets announce themselves, they often model their work on Classical writers with the intention of surpassing them and announcing themselves as successors. Again this is best seen with Milton and 'Lycidas'.
But also translations are recognised as sometimes surpassing the original. Dyden's translation of Virgil was often praised as better than Virgil himself.
So the argument does exist during the Renaissance that actually they weren't equal to the Classical world but I think it's a pseudo-intellectual affectation. That, actually, from Petrarch to Swift there's an, until then, unparalleled intellectual intimacy and feeling of closeness between the Renaissance and Classical mind.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2012, 01:16:08 PM
This Muslim view on their pre-Muslim ancestors is something that I read about from other Muslims. I found it strange, but didn't question it. The Christian West tended to strip the religious significance from the ancient Greek authors (and much of ancient Greek and Roman culture all together). It gave an impression of secularism that I don't think was actually there. For instance, much of Greek moral philosophy arose to solve perceived deficiencies in the Greek religious practices.
But the Christianity the Christian west developed was already overwhelmingly influenced by those philosophers, given the Greeks themselves developed early Christianity. So when you read Greek Philosophers you see ideas from Christianity all over the place. Greek moral philosophy is a good example.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 19, 2012, 12:45:40 PM
You posted while I was writing that. I was responding to Raz.
Thats what I get for jumping into the middle of a thread. My apologies.
Quote from: Valmy on January 19, 2012, 01:36:12 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2012, 01:16:08 PM
This Muslim view on their pre-Muslim ancestors is something that I read about from other Muslims. I found it strange, but didn't question it. The Christian West tended to strip the religious significance from the ancient Greek authors (and much of ancient Greek and Roman culture all together). It gave an impression of secularism that I don't think was actually there. For instance, much of Greek moral philosophy arose to solve perceived deficiencies in the Greek religious practices.
But the Christianity the Christian west developed was already overwhelmingly influenced by those philosophers, given the Greeks themselves developed early Christianity. So when you read Greek Philosophers you see ideas from Christianity all over the place. Greek moral philosophy is a good example.
I think Plato had preciously little with writing the Bible. Also I think the Jews had a major impact on it as well.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2012, 12:16:13 PM
My point was why should we assume that we are more "Greek", the the Greeks are? If ancient Greece was indeed the cradle of Western culture, why is only Western Europe worthy to be heirs of this intellectual heritage?
We aren't. Ancient Greece was the cradle for more than one culture.
Quote from: Valmy on January 19, 2012, 01:36:12 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2012, 01:16:08 PM
This Muslim view on their pre-Muslim ancestors is something that I read about from other Muslims. I found it strange, but didn't question it. The Christian West tended to strip the religious significance from the ancient Greek authors (and much of ancient Greek and Roman culture all together). It gave an impression of secularism that I don't think was actually there. For instance, much of Greek moral philosophy arose to solve perceived deficiencies in the Greek religious practices.
But the Christianity the Christian west developed was already overwhelmingly influenced by those philosophers, given the Greeks themselves developed early Christianity. So when you read Greek Philosophers you see ideas from Christianity all over the place. Greek moral philosophy is a good example.
Rather you see ideas from Greek philosophy all over the place when you read Christian texts but I grant you the reverse could also be true for later Greek philosophers.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2012, 01:40:17 PM
I think Plato had preciously little with writing the Bible. Also I think the Jews had a major impact on it as well.
I think Plato had tons to do with Christian thought.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 19, 2012, 01:40:48 PM
Rather you see ideas from Greek philosophy all over the place when you read Christian texts
Right :blush:
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2012, 01:40:17 PM
I think Plato had preciously little with writing the Bible.
:blink:
Obviously Plato didn't *write* anything in the Bible, but if you think the New Testament isn't littered with Platonic thought...I just can't even begin to wonder how you could read anything about the history of Christianity and come to that conclusion.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2012, 01:40:17 PM
I think Plato had preciously little with writing the Bible. Also I think the Jews had a major impact on it as well.
If the Jews had a "major" impact why is it that all the earliest texts are written in Greek? Where are all the Aramiac writings? The main impact Jews had on Christianity is that the earlier Christian writers were proposing a form of Chrisitianity that would be more friendly to a Jewish audience - Matthew is often pointed to for this. But by the time Paul starts writing his letters and particularly by the time the gospel of John is written that Jewish friendly attitude falls away completely (to say the very least).
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2012, 01:40:17 PM
I think Plato had preciously little with writing the Bible. Also I think the Jews had a major impact on it as well.
But the Jews and the Greeks existed in the same cultural universe. They came into contact with one another. I think the Wisdom writers seem to have been influenced by trends in the thought of Hellenised Jewish communities.
My post got lost, not worth retyping.
Raz, I think you are coming from a rather uninformed viewpoint of the classic greek philosophers and their impact upon Christian and later Medieval thought.
Quote from: PDH on January 19, 2012, 01:55:16 PM
Raz, I think you are coming from a rather uninformed viewpoint of the classic greek philosophers and their impact upon Christian and later Medieval thought.
That will never stop him from arguing.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 19, 2012, 01:50:41 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2012, 01:40:17 PM
I think Plato had preciously little with writing the Bible. Also I think the Jews had a major impact on it as well.
But the Jews and the Greeks existed in the same cultural universe. They came into contact with one another. I think the Wisdom writers seem to have been influenced by trends in the thought of Hellenised Jewish communities.
Yeah, Paul is actually a very good example of this. A Hellenized Jew who broke with Jewish tradition and embrazed the cultural dominance of the Hellenized world.
And a bank wobbew.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 19, 2012, 01:48:45 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2012, 01:40:17 PM
I think Plato had preciously little with writing the Bible. Also I think the Jews had a major impact on it as well.
If the Jews had a "major" impact why is it that all the earliest texts are written in Greek? Where are all the Aramiac writings? The main impact Jews had on Christianity is that the earlier Christian writers were proposing a form of Chrisitianity that would be more friendly to a Jewish audience - Matthew is often pointed to for this. But by the time Paul starts writing his letters and particularly by the time the gospel of John is written that Jewish friendly attitude falls away completely (to say the very least).
Well half of it is written in Hebrew, and most of the characters are Jews. I'd say they had a major impact on the bible.
Quote from: PDH on January 19, 2012, 01:55:16 PM
My post got lost, not worth retyping.
Raz, I think you are coming from a rather uninformed viewpoint of the classic greek philosophers and their impact upon Christian and later Medieval thought.
I think there is a difference between the bible itself and later Christian thought.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2012, 02:29:02 PM
Well half of it is written in Hebrew, and most of the characters are Jews. I'd say they had a major impact on the bible.
The Christian part is written in Greek. The Hebrew parts are included for legitimacy. ;)
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2012, 02:29:47 PM
I think there is a difference between the bible itself and later Christian thought.
What point are you making here? I was talking about Christianity so Christian thought is what it is about.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 19, 2012, 02:02:41 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 19, 2012, 01:50:41 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2012, 01:40:17 PM
I think Plato had preciously little with writing the Bible. Also I think the Jews had a major impact on it as well.
But the Jews and the Greeks existed in the same cultural universe. They came into contact with one another. I think the Wisdom writers seem to have been influenced by trends in the thought of Hellenised Jewish communities.
Yeah, Paul is actually a very good example of this. A Hellenized Jew who broke with Jewish tradition and embrazed the cultural dominance of the Hellenized world.
But, OTOH, Paul probably still considered himself a Jew. And aside from nascent Christianity, there were other Jewish sects that embraced Hellenization to one extent or another. Of course other Jewish sects rejected Greek ideas and culture completely. There were a lot of Jewish sects during that time, and they had widely diverging ideas.
Quote from: Valmy on January 19, 2012, 02:33:24 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2012, 02:29:47 PM
I think there is a difference between the bible itself and later Christian thought.
What point are you making here? I was talking about Christianity so Christian thought is what it is about.
I think we are getting off track here.
Quote from: dps on January 19, 2012, 02:33:55 PM
But, OTOH, Paul probably still considered himself a Jew.
Unless Paul was lying in his letters about it I think it is certain rather than probable. He addresses specific conflicts between his people, the Jew Christians, and the Greek Christians.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2012, 02:29:47 PM
I think there is a difference between the bible itself and later Christian thought.
But if we're talking about Platonism, the difference is one of *more* Platonic thought, not less.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2012, 02:38:53 PM
I think we are getting off track here.
Well the dogma of the Church, at least until the reformation, is pretty important in linking Ancient Greece and Western Civ.
This is what I hate about Languish. People provide so many more valid critisisms to my posts. This was so much easier on EUOT. I'll have to think more on this.
Quote from: fahdiz on January 19, 2012, 02:39:30 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2012, 02:29:47 PM
I think there is a difference between the bible itself and later Christian thought.
But if we're talking about Platonism, the difference is one of *more* Platonic thought, not less.
Actually, we are talking about what Is the West, and if Greece is the West as well.
Quote from: dps on January 19, 2012, 02:33:55 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 19, 2012, 02:02:41 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 19, 2012, 01:50:41 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2012, 01:40:17 PM
I think Plato had preciously little with writing the Bible. Also I think the Jews had a major impact on it as well.
But the Jews and the Greeks existed in the same cultural universe. They came into contact with one another. I think the Wisdom writers seem to have been influenced by trends in the thought of Hellenised Jewish communities.
Yeah, Paul is actually a very good example of this. A Hellenized Jew who broke with Jewish tradition and embrazed the cultural dominance of the Hellenized world.
But, OTOH, Paul probably still considered himself a Jew. And aside from nascent Christianity, there were other Jewish sects that embraced Hellenization to one extent or another. Of course other Jewish sects rejected Greek ideas and culture completely. There were a lot of Jewish sects during that time, and they had widely diverging ideas.
I am not sure how Paul would have considered himself a Jew after teaching that Jewish cultural practices should be rejected in order to make Christianity more attractive to the wider Hellenized world. A Jew by birth but not an observant Jew.
That is not to say that I disagree with your observation that Judaism itself was influenced by the cultural dominance of the hellenistic world around them - either in the rejection or adoption of that culture.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2012, 02:41:30 PM
This is what I hate about Languish. People provide so many more valid critisisms to my posts. This was so much easier on EUOT. I'll have to think more on this.
:lol:
Quote from: Valmy on January 19, 2012, 02:39:07 PM
Quote from: dps on January 19, 2012, 02:33:55 PM
But, OTOH, Paul probably still considered himself a Jew.
Unless Paul was lying in his letters about it I think it is certain rather than probable. He addresses specific conflicts between his people, the Jew Christians, and the Greek Christians.
That is the distinction between being a Jew in the sense of being a part of the Jewish people within the Roman empire (he was both a Jew and a Roman in that sense) and a religiously observant Jew - which he certainly was not, at least after his trip to Damascus..
Quote from: Valmy on January 19, 2012, 02:39:47 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2012, 02:38:53 PM
I think we are getting off track here.
Well the dogma of the Church, at least until the reformation, is pretty important in linking Ancient Greece and Western Civ.
I do not deny that the the classical world had influence on the West. But was this influence greater on the West over any other culture in the area? Such as Eastern Europe or the Middle East? If the influence on these places was equal or greater why should we consider the West the true heirs to the Greeks?
My thesis is that that there was a separate culture, a Mediterranean one pre-existed the current Western one. In Western Europe this largely collapsed after Rome fell and a new civilization took place. This new Civilization, built on the ruins of the old with a major influx of barbarians is what we call the West. This Mediterranean civilization last much longer in the East before falling to forces in the Middle East. This classical mediteranian civilization contributed heavily to three other civilizations, Western European, Eastern European, and Middle Eastern. These general categories of Civilization we use for today. None of them actually are the direct heirs of ancient Greece, but instead heavily influence by them.
I am curious if the Russians consider themselves the heirs of ancient Greece. Anyone know?
Ok then we are not debating over anything substantial then. I believe Western Civ split into an Eastern Branch and Western Branch. You hold that it was a third Civ that split.
I guess I would have to be convinced my view requires proof Western Europe is more Greek than the Greeks. That is absurd.
BTW, doesn't the Great Schism refer to the two popes, one in Avignon and the other in Rome?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 19, 2012, 03:13:01 PM
BTW, doesn't the Great Schism refer to the two popes, one in Avignon and the other in Rome?
Not so great, the west had a bunch of popes and antipopes. The great one was between the eastern and western churches.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 19, 2012, 03:13:01 PM
BTW, doesn't the Great Schism refer to the two popes, one in Avignon and the other in Rome?
No that was the "Western Schism" and I believe there were three Popes...maybe even four for a bit before Martin V un-Poped everybody (or maybe the College of Cardinals or some other body un-Poped everybody...I do not remember). The Great Schism refers to the excommunication of the Patriarch of Constantinople by the Pope in 1054.
Quote from: Valmy on January 19, 2012, 01:41:44 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2012, 01:40:17 PM
I think Plato had preciously little with writing the Bible. Also I think the Jews had a major impact on it as well.
I think Plato had tons to do with Christian thought.
Not so much Plato but rather Plotinus and the Neoplatonists (who, if you asked them would have called themlselves Platonists). Neoplatonism, while it has pagan origins, is the foundation of Catholic thought. Effectively Catholicism is Neoplatonism with Jesus inserted. While the medievals lacked Plato's texts they had their consequences (as seen by Porphyrus and Plotinus) in their Liturgy.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2012, 02:42:28 PM
Actually, we are talking about what Is the West, and if Greece is the West as well.
You're the one who wanted to say (wrongly) that Plato didn't have much influence on Christianity.
In any event, the topics are tied together, since Platonism is certainly Greek and Christianity has certainly become associated with the West, for better or worse.
I said that Plato didn't write the Bible.,
Quote from: Valmy on January 19, 2012, 03:02:55 PM
Ok then we are not debating over anything substantial then. I believe Western Civ split into an Eastern Branch and Western Branch. You hold that it was a third Civ that split.
I guess I would have to be convinced my view requires proof Western Europe is more Greek than the Greeks. That is absurd.
I would help to look back and see what this thread is about. If Ancient Greece is the cradle of Western Civilization and was part of the West it should be the epitome of what is "Western". For both societies to move their own way and only one be called "Western" and the one that is Western is the one that isn't Greek it means the other one has to out Greek the Greeks. Or perhaps be more "Western" then the founder of "Westernism".
As I said, the Greeks and Bulgarians draw a great deal of their intellectual heritage from ancient Greece, why should they be relegated to "eastern" while Britain is considered "Western"? The only reason I can think of is intellectual chauvinism. The desire to draw a direct line from the brilliant culture of ancient Greece to the modern period. I reject this.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2012, 07:07:39 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 19, 2012, 03:02:55 PM
Ok then we are not debating over anything substantial then. I believe Western Civ split into an Eastern Branch and Western Branch. You hold that it was a third Civ that split.
I guess I would have to be convinced my view requires proof Western Europe is more Greek than the Greeks. That is absurd.
I would help to look back and see what this thread is about. If Ancient Greece is the cradle of Western Civilization and was part of the West it should be the epitome of what is "Western". For both societies to move their own way and only one be called "Western" and the one that is Western is the one that isn't Greek it means the other one has to out Greek the Greeks. Or perhaps be more "Western" then the founder of "Westernism".
As I said, the Greeks and Bulgarians draw a great deal of their intellectual heritage from ancient Greece, why should they be relegated to "eastern" while Britain is considered "Western"? The only reason I can think of is intellectual chauvinism. The desire to draw a direct line from the brilliant culture of ancient Greece to the modern period. I reject this.
Not sure that follows. The Chinese invented gunpowder, but that's not made them a predominat military power since then.
True, but I wouldn't consider the France "Chinese" because they adopted either.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 19, 2012, 12:36:21 PM
You're wrong on the Renaissance. They didn't feel inferior. The Medieval world felt inferior, in some ways, but one of the marks of the Renaissance is a certain intellectual self-confidence. For example Petrarch wrote a series of letters to Cicero, as a friend. He was not only equal to, but corresponding with, the Classical world. That sort of intimacy is unimaginable in the Medieval period.
The School of Athens confirms this attitude, IMO.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F9%2F94%2FSanzio_01.jpg%2F773px-Sanzio_01.jpg&hash=e9a93fbe77cc40308a6f3e24730828b416012759)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 19, 2012, 03:13:01 PM
BTW, doesn't the Great Schism refer to the two popes, one in Avignon and the other in Rome?
Both the 1054 schism and the 1378 schism are referred to as "the Great Schism."
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2012, 09:12:46 PM
True, but I wouldn't consider the France "Chinese" because they adopted either.
Well, we don't call the West Greece, we call it the West.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2012, 07:07:39 PM
I would help to look back and see what this thread is about. If Ancient Greece is the cradle of Western Civilization and was part of the West it should be the epitome of what is "Western". For both societies to move their own way and only one be called "Western" and the one that is Western is the one that isn't Greek it means the other one has to out Greek the Greeks. Or perhaps be more "Western" then the founder of "Westernism".
I disagree and am unconvinced by this premise so I fail to see the value in arguing it. I mean India is the cradle of Buddhism but there are many countries more Buddhist than India.
QuoteAs I said, the Greeks and Bulgarians draw a great deal of their intellectual heritage from ancient Greece, why should they be relegated to "eastern" while Britain is considered "Western"? The only reason I can think of is intellectual chauvinism. The desire to draw a direct line from the brilliant culture of ancient Greece to the modern period. I reject this.
No it is for perfectly good historical reasons I have discussed several times in this thread. Intellectual Chauvinism? Please.
Is this one of those "thoughts" that is actually an assertion, Raz? It seems you are ignoring the evidence that shows how the West used (in Ancient times and later Medieval/Renaissance) the work of the Greeks to build and increase the foundation of those things that are essentially Western.
Quote from: Valmy on January 20, 2012, 10:10:57 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2012, 07:07:39 PM
I would help to look back and see what this thread is about. If Ancient Greece is the cradle of Western Civilization and was part of the West it should be the epitome of what is "Western". For both societies to move their own way and only one be called "Western" and the one that is Western is the one that isn't Greek it means the other one has to out Greek the Greeks. Or perhaps be more "Western" then the founder of "Westernism".
I disagree and am unconvinced by this premise so I fail to see the value in arguing it. I mean India is the cradle of Buddhism but there are many countries more Buddhist than India.
It is classic Razzian "gotcha" argumentation: built on premises that are, in fact, not only not generally accepted, but made up on the spot, and then presenting an obviously flawed "conclusion" as though its flaws then disproved the contention that Greece was one of the wellsprings of Western thought.
I recommend that you just ignore him. There is no intellectual honesty in this kind of argument, just an effort to somehow "set you up" so he can come back with this kind of lame "zinger."
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2012, 06:54:52 PM
I said that Plato didn't write the Bible.,
But since we all know that's true, why even bother to say it?
No, you were trying to make a point about Greek influence on the Bible. And it was an incorrect one. No weasling, now - take it like a man.
I'm well aware of what point I was trying to make.
Quote from: grumbler on January 20, 2012, 10:45:18 AM
Quote from: Valmy on January 20, 2012, 10:10:57 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2012, 07:07:39 PM
I would help to look back and see what this thread is about. If Ancient Greece is the cradle of Western Civilization and was part of the West it should be the epitome of what is "Western". For both societies to move their own way and only one be called "Western" and the one that is Western is the one that isn't Greek it means the other one has to out Greek the Greeks. Or perhaps be more "Western" then the founder of "Westernism".
I disagree and am unconvinced by this premise so I fail to see the value in arguing it. I mean India is the cradle of Buddhism but there are many countries more Buddhist than India.
It is classic Razzian "gotcha" argumentation: built on premises that are, in fact, not only not generally accepted, but made up on the spot, and then presenting an obviously flawed "conclusion" as though its flaws then disproved the contention that Greece was one of the wellsprings of Western thought.
I recommend that you just ignore him. There is no intellectual honesty in this kind of argument, just an effort to somehow "set you up" so he can come back with this kind of lame "zinger."
You should follow your own advice and stay out of my thread.
Quote from: PDH on January 20, 2012, 10:17:45 AM
Is this one of those "thoughts" that is actually an assertion, Raz? It seems you are ignoring the evidence that shows how the West used (in Ancient times and later Medieval/Renaissance) the work of the Greeks to build and increase the foundation of those things that are essentially Western.
Which part?
Tell me, do Eastern Europeans think their culture is derived from ancient Greek? Are they taught Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates. Are they taught the Iliad and the Odyssey?
Are they part of a tradition that uses the elemental greek philosophies as a basis for logic, human understanding, relation to the physical world, metaphysics? Are they part of a tradition that bases this upon a rediscovery of these tracts a thousand years ago, and later attempted to draw specific ties to these ancients?
It is not rocket science, the intellectual descent from the ancient greeks to the roots of Western philosophical systems is expressed, intended, and sought after.
As I said a long time ago, because something is a precurser does not make that the same, but it does make it a precurser - and in the case of Greece, explicity a precurser with entire thought systems built to exploit this earlier knowledge. Religion, religious systems, logic...all are tied to the greeks.
Were Austria-Hungary and Prussia part of the West or the East or maybe both?
Quote from: Zanza on January 20, 2012, 01:39:20 PM
Were Austria-Hungary and Prussia part of the West or the East or maybe both?
The good parts were part of the West. The shitty parts were part of the East.
Quote from: PDH on January 20, 2012, 01:38:56 PM
Are they part of a tradition that uses the elemental greek philosophies as a basis for logic, human understanding, relation to the physical world, metaphysics? Are they part of a tradition that bases this upon a rediscovery of these tracts a thousand years ago, and later attempted to draw specific ties to these ancients?
It is not rocket science, the intellectual descent from the ancient greeks to the roots of Western philosophical systems is expressed, intended, and sought after.
As I said a long time ago, because something is a precurser does not make that the same, but it does make it a precurser - and in the case of Greece, explicity a precurser with entire thought systems built to exploit this earlier knowledge. Religion, religious systems, logic...all are tied to the greeks.
I am unclear what you are responding to here. I wrote four questions.
"Which Part?
"And four questions about Eastern Europe".
What are you responding to?
Quote from: DGuller on January 20, 2012, 01:44:37 PM
Quote from: Zanza on January 20, 2012, 01:39:20 PM
Were Austria-Hungary and Prussia part of the West or the East or maybe both?
The good parts were part of the West. The shitty parts were part of the East.
Dguller, do you know if they teach Greek Philosophy in Russia? Is it regarded as the basis of their philosophy?
I am not arguing if Bulgaria is part of the West or not, I am arguing against what you asserted earlier - that Greece (and more classical Greece) is not part of the West.
I have shown specific links between the two, I have also stated that a precurser is not the same as a descendent, but they are linked - in the case of Greece openly and expressly linked. Being a precursor such as this makes ancient Greece part of the west, as they are part of the tradition and self-identification that the West uses.
You either are not listening, or you are going off on tangents rather than listening.
I can show explicit links between Greece and Bulgaria, or Sumeria and Greece for that matter. If a country like Bulgaria draws explicit links from Greece and Bulgaria is not Western then neither can Greece be. It can't be both Western and Eastern European at the same time.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 20, 2012, 01:46:49 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 20, 2012, 01:44:37 PM
Quote from: Zanza on January 20, 2012, 01:39:20 PM
Were Austria-Hungary and Prussia part of the West or the East or maybe both?
The good parts were part of the West. The shitty parts were part of the East.
Dguller, do you know if they teach Greek Philosophy in Russia? Is it regarded as the basis of their philosophy?
No idea whatsoever.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 20, 2012, 01:25:38 PM
I'm well aware of what point I was trying to make.
...and it was that Plato didn't write the Bible?
Congratulations.
I am going to make an awesome point now as well. Ahem:
"Corn flakes usually contain corn."
I so win this fucking thread! :showoff:
I'm not sure what you're arguing Raz. But a few things about your last post.
I don't think your argument actually follows.
Cultures aren't hermetically sealed and some how exclusive and pure. They interact, mingle and define one another in all sorts of ways.
I think you really overstate the West-Eastern European divisions. You make it sound like they're as culturally separate as Sami and Aborigine. They're very close, almost as one.
Having said all that I'm still not sure what purpose defining Western serves. As I say I still don't get your point at all.
Quote from: fahdiz on January 20, 2012, 02:42:04 PM
"Corn flakes usually contain corn."
That's what they want you to think. 100% tree bark :contract:
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 20, 2012, 02:49:31 PM
Having said all that I'm still not sure what purpose defining Western serves.
In general or in this thread? In general because the term 'The West' and 'Western Values' and the like get used in public discourse all the time so it is useful to define what exactly people mean when they say them.
I'm sorry you couldn't put words in my Mouth Fahdiz. :console:
Quote from: HVC on January 20, 2012, 02:58:46 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on January 20, 2012, 02:42:04 PM
"Corn flakes usually contain corn."
That's what they want you to think. 100% tree bark :contract:
The Institute of Kindergarden Research states that it is 100% scabs. :contract:
Quote from: Razgovory on January 20, 2012, 03:06:29 PM
I'm sorry you couldn't put words in my Mouth Fahdiz. :console:
I'm sorry your arguments aren't very good. Now we're even.
You aren't making any sense; no one in this thread thinks you're making any sense. Why don't you just cut your losses?
I reckon so. My argument that something can't be two things at once falls on deaf ears.
I now realize I made a tactical mistake. Instead of simply saying that Plato didn't write the Bible and leave room for people put words in my mouth I should have pointed out that Christianity isn't a uniquely Western concept. They've had Christianity in Eastern Europe and Russia for quite some time.
But alas, I did not. So I reckon I lose. :(
Quote from: Razgovory on January 20, 2012, 04:22:03 PM
I now realize I made a tactical mistake. Instead of simply saying that Plato didn't write the Bible and leave room for people put words in my mouth I should have pointed out that Christianity isn't a uniquely Western concept. They've had Christianity in Eastern Europe and Russia for quite some time.
I don't see how this point is any more interesting or significant or adds anything more to the conversation than claiming Plato didn't write the Bible.
Both are true and obvious. So what?
Quote from: Razgovory on January 20, 2012, 03:59:00 PM
I reckon so. My argument that something can't be two things at once falls on deaf ears.
All kinds of things can be two things at once :blink:
Quote from: fahdiz on January 20, 2012, 04:29:57 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 20, 2012, 03:59:00 PM
I reckon so. My argument that something can't be two things at once falls on deaf ears.
All kinds of things can be two things at once :blink:
Can a place be both Eastern and Western at once?
Quote from: Valmy on January 20, 2012, 04:25:29 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 20, 2012, 04:22:03 PM
I now realize I made a tactical mistake. Instead of simply saying that Plato didn't write the Bible and leave room for people put words in my mouth I should have pointed out that Christianity isn't a uniquely Western concept. They've had Christianity in Eastern Europe and Russia for quite some time.
I don't see how this point is any more interesting or significant or adds anything more to the conversation than claiming Plato didn't write the Bible.
Both are true and obvious. So what?
So the thing about Christianity wasn't really relevant to the argument against me. My argument is not that Greece didn't contribute to the West, but that it contributed to other cultures at least as equally. If Greek thought and religion provides the foundation of both Eastern European and Western European thought, then it can't be solely Western or Eastern. It has to be something else.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 20, 2012, 04:50:51 PM
So the thing about Christianity wasn't really relevant to the argument against me. My argument is not that Greece didn't contribute to the West, but that it contributed to other cultures at least as equally. If Greek thought and religion provides the foundation of both Eastern European and Western European thought, then it can't be solely Western or Eastern. It has to be something else.
But what would be relevent in this discussion? Nothing. I already said I disagree fundamentally to your premise so arguing from that premise will go nowhere. This is basic Aristotle, who is a key foundation to my thinking.
Okay, what line of argument would get me somewhere?
Quote from: Razgovory on January 20, 2012, 03:59:00 PM
I reckon so. My argument that something can't be two things at once falls on deaf ears.
Of course something can be 2 (or more) things at once. A red chair is both a chair, and a red object. If it happens to be made of wood, it's also a wooden object.
Quote from: dps on January 20, 2012, 07:45:04 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 20, 2012, 03:59:00 PM
I reckon so. My argument that something can't be two things at once falls on deaf ears.
Of course something can be 2 (or more) things at once. A red chair is both a chair, and a red object. If it happens to be made of wood, it's also a wooden object.
Perhaps I should have phrased it differently. To mutually exclusive things can't be the same at once. Something can't be East and West at the same time.
Quote from: fahdiz on January 20, 2012, 04:29:57 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 20, 2012, 03:59:00 PM
I reckon so. My argument that something can't be two things at once falls on deaf ears.
All kinds of things can be two things at once :blink:
I am both tall and awesome. Some people confuse those as being the same thing but they are distinctly distinct.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 20, 2012, 08:02:08 PM
Quote from: dps on January 20, 2012, 07:45:04 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 20, 2012, 03:59:00 PM
I reckon so. My argument that something can't be two things at once falls on deaf ears.
Of course something can be 2 (or more) things at once. A red chair is both a chair, and a red object. If it happens to be made of wood, it's also a wooden object.
Perhaps I should have phrased it differently. To mutually exclusive things can't be the same at once. Something can't be East and West at the same time.
Why must the Greeks have influenced only one culture?
Quote from: Razgovory on January 20, 2012, 04:40:51 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on January 20, 2012, 04:29:57 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 20, 2012, 03:59:00 PM
I reckon so. My argument that something can't be two things at once falls on deaf ears.
All kinds of things can be two things at once :blink:
Can a place be both Eastern and Western at once?
Can't a culture espouse some Eastern ideals and some Western ideals as the same time?
Quote from: garbon on January 20, 2012, 08:43:16 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 20, 2012, 04:40:51 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on January 20, 2012, 04:29:57 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 20, 2012, 03:59:00 PM
I reckon so. My argument that something can't be two things at once falls on deaf ears.
All kinds of things can be two things at once :blink:
Can a place be both Eastern and Western at once?
Can't a culture espouse some Eastern ideals and some Western ideals as the same time?
If he says no, he has to get his butt over to Vancouver to see it live and in person.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 20, 2012, 08:02:08 PM
Quote from: dps on January 20, 2012, 07:45:04 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 20, 2012, 03:59:00 PM
I reckon so. My argument that something can't be two things at once falls on deaf ears.
Of course something can be 2 (or more) things at once. A red chair is both a chair, and a red object. If it happens to be made of wood, it's also a wooden object.
Perhaps I should have phrased it differently. To mutually exclusive things can't be the same at once. Something can't be East and West at the same time.
So if I go to Greenwich this Sunday and take a picture of me standing on the Meridian for you, will I be in the Eastern or the Western hemispheres at that moment or perhaps both ? :bowler:
Quote from: garbon on January 20, 2012, 08:43:16 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 20, 2012, 04:40:51 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on January 20, 2012, 04:29:57 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 20, 2012, 03:59:00 PM
I reckon so. My argument that something can't be two things at once falls on deaf ears.
All kinds of things can be two things at once :blink:
Can a place be both Eastern and Western at once?
Can't a culture espouse some Eastern ideals and some Western ideals as the same time?
No. It's not a juxtaposition of west versus east. Your use of the word "East" here is about as bizzarre as having not-islam or not-hindu or not-confucian as culture or identifying an idea as non-something. "The West" here is not referring to a compass position, it is equivalent to the use of "Islamic", "Indian/Hindu", "Chinese/Confusian/Dao" etc. We are stuck with the phrase "The West" because we lost the use of "Christendom" and "Europe" in the Enlightenment and Age of Exploration as well as getting lumbered with "The West" during the Cold War.
There is naturally a cross pollination of ideas; especially during the axial age and today. Christianity and Christianity's unique idea of Individual worth is an eastern idea (in Roman terms) imported into what was the still not yet west "west". A Culture has it's own values and ideas; most of which are ultimately imported. The point is that there is no WEST or EAST which generates these ideas externally which then any self defined culture can then pick and mix. If you adopt an idea it becomes your idea. If you adopt western ideas then you become part of the west. If you have Democracy, Law, Science and Human Rights as The West understands those ideas then you are part of the west. If you pick and mix then you are NOT part of the west.
It isn't bizarre as that's been the tenor of the discussion. Should I be petulant and refuse to use the terms that were posed in the question?
As to the rest of your post, haven't several members of the West been spanked recently for picking and choosing from those ideas, as you say?
What is the west? Glad I could be of help.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F6QspH.jpg&hash=5db979ffc778a872fe3af399bf1ecd0d138c4ffd)
COLOUR KEY-
Dark blue: the upright West, right and proper, as most understand it. See also: "True west", "west west"
lighter blue: The Southern Europeans. authentically western, but allergic to the protestant work ethic. See also: "Neutral West"
ice-esque blue: A contracting realm. Embraces many ideas not necessarily endorsed by TRUE WEST. See also: "Evil West"
MORE DIFFERENT NEVER FORGET BLUE: EUGENE TERRE'BLANCHE RIP GOODNIGHT SWEET PRINCE
Red: Zipang, the land of promise
Pink: Not exactly the west, but doing its best. Deserves an A for effort. See also: "Chaotic West"
Brown: A west befouled by various unfortunate strains of the western tradition. See also: "Chaotic Evil West"
Green: A west that may yet be redeemed into the contemporary strain; it is unclear if they will rejoin the mainstream west or the Southern Europeans. See also: "Lawful West."
Orange: areas to be peacebly re-integrated into Zipang on an equal basis
Black: the impudent slave race, to be suppressed by Omawari-san
Yellow: An alternate civilization theory to the West.
Quote from: garbon on January 20, 2012, 09:46:02 PM
It isn't bizarre as that's been the tenor of the discussion. Should I be petulant and refuse to use the terms that were posed in the question?
As to the rest of your post, haven't several members of the West been spanked recently for picking and choosing from those ideas, as you say?
Since the question that was posed is "What is the West? Is Greece part of the West?" I think it is bizzarre since I consider "The West" to be a cultural and philosophical whole. This is in part since "The West" has been used to describe everything from places west of Achaemenid Persia, Parthia, Illyria, Greece, Orthodoxy and The Iron Curtain. This is a continuum that starts with Ancient Greece, Classical Rome, Medeival Catholicism etc. (terms after this point get complicated and overly verbose).
That all being said what makes "The West" a cultural and philosophical group today are a set of core values. Any society which adhers to all these values is automatically accepted (Korea and Japan) and any state which deviates from these values will be rejected even if they seek to join (Turkey and Russia). I'm not quite sure what you mean by Eastern Values, but I have been working with the assumption that what you are talking about is not Hummous, Saris or Noh Theater but rather views by non western societies on law, democracy, science and human rights.
Please don't get the impression that with "The West" I am in any way talking about western genetics, food, music, clothing or theater; all those things are mere window dressing and details. Which is why Japan and Korea are western despite being farther east than any non-western society (pacific islanders excepted). Being white doesn't make you western.
But, do say, which members of the west did get spanked for deviating from my 4 principles; and, does it fit my thesis here that when they deviate they get spanked?
Quote from: Lettow77 on January 21, 2012, 12:20:38 AM
What is the west? Glad I could be of help.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F6QspH.jpg&hash=5db979ffc778a872fe3af399bf1ecd0d138c4ffd)
COLOUR KEY-
Dark blue: the upright West, right and proper, as most understand it. See also: "True west", "west west"
lighter blue: The Southern Europeans. authentically western, but allergic to the protestant work ethic. See also: "Neutral West"
ice-esque blue: A contracting realm. Embraces many ideas not necessarily endorsed by TRUE WEST. See also: "Evil West"
MORE DIFFERENT NEVER FORGET BLUE: EUGENE TERRE'BLANCHE RIP GOODNIGHT SWEET PRINCE
Red: Zipang, the land of promise
Pink: Not exactly the west, but doing its best. Deserves an A for effort. See also: "Chaotic West"
Brown: A west befouled by various unfortunate strains of the western tradition. See also: "Chaotic Evil West"
Green: A west that may yet be redeemed into the contemporary strain; it is unclear if they will rejoin the mainstream west or the Southern Europeans. See also: "Lawful West."
Orange: areas to be peacebly re-integrated into Zipang on an equal basis
Black: the impudent slave race, to be suppressed by Omawari-san
Yellow: An alternate civilization theory to the West.
Except I don't know what Slovakia did to you, and THE ROC WILL NEVER DIE, basically correct.
Especially the bolded part.
I find myself with strange allies here...
Lettow, it might surprise you but Slovakia is basically identical to Czech Republic and Poland.
I feel most sorry for poor Croatia :o
Quote from: Sahib on January 21, 2012, 08:53:30 AM
Lettow, it might surprise you but Slovakia is basically identical to Czech Republic and Poland.
eh.. the rule of Vladimir Meciar means that Slovakia is a few years behind the Czechs and Poles.
Why would Japan want an island full of Russians?
Quote from: Tonitrus on January 21, 2012, 01:18:58 PM
Why would Japan want an island full of Russians?
Most are content with sex slaves that look just like Japanese women, but some desire more exotic fare.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 21, 2012, 08:54:27 AM
I feel most sorry for poor Croatia :o
I find myself wondering about the status of Baja, and Vancouver.
Patagonia, having refused the West, is doomed to whiteness...
Quote from: PDH on January 21, 2012, 06:01:20 PM
Patagonia, having refused the West, is doomed to whiteness...
I thought being doomed to whiteness was what happened when you embraced the West.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 21, 2012, 08:16:42 PM
Quote from: PDH on January 21, 2012, 06:01:20 PM
Patagonia, having refused the West, is doomed to whiteness...
I thought being doomed to whiteness was what happened when you embraced the West.
'dem Turks ain't getting any whiter.
The one Turk I knew was this chick in law school (GO HOME), who was as pale as me, and had blue eyes. (But nott hott, I'm afraid.)
Hey, Lettow, what's the color white?
Colonies?
Quote from: Siege on January 24, 2012, 08:22:07 PM
Hey, Lettow, what's the color white?
Colonies?
It's all the other primary colors together.
If the "West" is to have any meaning as a concept other than a relative geographic and geopolitical designator, then not only is ancient Greece a part of it, it is THE critical founding point. Virtually every idea typically conceived of as a core part of western thought, culture and politics traces a clear path back to ancient Greece. Enlightenment rationalism in particular.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 25, 2012, 11:22:57 AM
If the "West" is to have any meaning as a concept other than a relative geographic and geopolitical designator, then not only is ancient Greece a part of it, it is THE critical founding point. Virtually every idea typically conceived of as a core part of western thought, culture and politics traces a clear path back to ancient Greece. Enlightenment rationalism in particular.
I agree, but that doesn't necessarily mean that modern Greece is still part of the West. Overall, I'm inclined to think that it is, but I could be convinced otherwise.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 25, 2012, 11:22:57 AM
If the "West" is to have any meaning as a concept other than a relative geographic and geopolitical designator, then not only is ancient Greece a part of it, it is THE critical founding point. Virtually every idea typically conceived of as a core part of western thought, culture and politics traces a clear path back to ancient Greece. Enlightenment rationalism in particular.
Well not the universality of human rights, popular sovreignty and the rule of law. Not every thought is a footnote on Plato.
Quote from: Viking on January 25, 2012, 12:08:11 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 25, 2012, 11:22:57 AM
If the "West" is to have any meaning as a concept other than a relative geographic and geopolitical designator, then not only is ancient Greece a part of it, it is THE critical founding point. Virtually every idea typically conceived of as a core part of western thought, culture and politics traces a clear path back to ancient Greece. Enlightenment rationalism in particular.
Well not the universality of human rights, popular sovreignty and the rule of law. Not every thought is a footnote on Plato.
Yeah, our word for that.... what is it again... Democracy I think, probably has no relationship with the Greeks. :P
We all stand on the shoulders of the ancient Greeks.
Quote from: Viking on January 25, 2012, 12:08:11 PM
Well not the universality of human rights, popular sovreignty and the rule of law. Not every thought is a footnote on Plato.
Yeah no Ancient Greeks ever thought the people should be sovereign.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 25, 2012, 12:21:58 PM
Yeah, our word for that.... what is it again... Democracy I think, probably has no relationship with the Greeks. :P
The Greeks are so anti-Western they do not even have a word for Democracy.
Quote from: Valmy on January 25, 2012, 12:27:32 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 25, 2012, 12:21:58 PM
Yeah, our word for that.... what is it again... Democracy I think, probably has no relationship with the Greeks. :P
The Greeks are so anti-Western they do not even have a word for Democracy.
:D
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 25, 2012, 11:22:57 AM
If the "West" is to have any meaning as a concept other than a relative geographic and geopolitical designator, then not only is ancient Greece a part of it, it is THE critical founding point. Virtually every idea typically conceived of as a core part of western thought, culture and politics traces a clear path back to ancient Greece. Enlightenment rationalism in particular.
I don't agree. This argument is the same as the argument that, if the "United States" is to have any meaning as a concept other than a relative geographic and geopolitical designator, then not only is France a part of it, it is THE critical founding point, because of the influence of people like Montesquieu on the US constitution.
Some individual Ancient Greek thinkers were the founders of some significant concepts embedded in the modern concept of the West, but Ancient Greece itself wasn't a part of the West.
The analogy fails.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 25, 2012, 12:21:58 PM
Yeah, our word for that.... what is it again... Democracy I think, probably has no relationship with the Greeks. :P
No, it doesn't. Not democracy as we understand it, anyway (let alone "popular sovereignty," which is the phrase Viking carefully used. The Greek concept of democracy is what we would call oligarchy, not popular sovereignty or democracy.
QuoteWe all stand on the shoulders of the a handful of ancient Greeks whose theories were largely ignored by the Ancient Greeks themselves..
Fixed your post.
Quote from: grumbler on January 25, 2012, 12:39:28 PM
QuoteWe all stand on the shoulders of the a handful of ancient Greeks whose theories were largely ignored by the Ancient Greeks themselves..
Fixed your post.
Well that is absolutely true. So? We certainly are not sacrificing bulls to Zeus or anything anymore.
@ Grumbler Yeah, I figured you would get all semantic on us and miss the point JR was making. Its fun when predictions come true.
I'm pretty sure that, say, Icelandic democracy was as developed as the Greek version, and developed pretty much independently of the Greek philosophers - so I don't think popular sovereignty is a uniquely Greek invention in spite of the fact that we use the word they coined.
Quote from: Jacob on January 25, 2012, 12:43:13 PM
I'm pretty sure that, say, Icelandic democracy was as developed as the Greek version, and developed pretty much independently of the Greek philosophers - so I don't think popular sovereignty is a uniquely Greek invention in spite of the fact that we use the word they coined.
I would be surprised if the Greek Philosophers truly thought of anything nobody had ever thought of in the history of the world previously but they were the people who wrote the stuff we read that led to us formulating our own ideas.
Quote from: Valmy on January 25, 2012, 12:23:13 PM
Yeah no Ancient Greeks ever thought the people should be sovereign.
True, barring a few people like Aristotle. Greek citizenship was not like Roman citizenship; it was highly exclusive. In Athens less than most other cities, but even in Athens.
Quote from: Jacob on January 25, 2012, 12:43:13 PM
I'm pretty sure that, say, Icelandic democracy was as developed as the Greek version, and developed pretty much independently of the Greek philosophers - so I don't think popular sovereignty is a uniquely Greek invention in spite of the fact that we use the word they coined.
Most of the Greek philosophers we still have were pretty anti-democratic. Though I think it's been argued the Sophists were probably more democratic in philosophy. So I certainly think it's unfair to give the philosophers much credit for it.
Quote from: grumbler on January 25, 2012, 12:54:18 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 25, 2012, 12:23:13 PM
Yeah no Ancient Greeks ever thought the people should be sovereign.
True, barring a few people like Aristotle. Greek citizenship was not like Roman citizenship; it was highly exclusive. In Athens less than most other cities, but even in Athens.
Roman citizenship was also quite exclusive, at least until Caracalla.
Quote from: Valmy on January 25, 2012, 12:40:53 PM
Quote from: grumbler on January 25, 2012, 12:39:28 PM
QuoteWe all stand on the shoulders of the a handful of ancient Greeks whose theories were largely ignored by the Ancient Greeks themselves..
Fixed your post.
Well that is absolutely true. So? We certainly are not sacrificing bulls to Zeus or anything anymore.
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").
I don't think that, if one sacrificed a bull to Zeus, you would be automatically disqualified from being "Western." Once upon a time, yes. But not today.
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.
Quote from: grumbler on January 25, 2012, 12:54:18 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 25, 2012, 12:23:13 PM
Yeah no Ancient Greeks ever thought the people should be sovereign.
True, barring a few people like Aristotle. Greek citizenship was not like Roman citizenship; it was highly exclusive. In Athens less than most other cities, but even in Athens.
Well so was American citizenship. Did we have no concept of popular sovereignty or was that only invented in 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.
Quote from: Sahib on January 21, 2012, 08:53:30 AM
Lettow, it might surprise you but Slovakia is basically identical to Czech Republic and Poland.
For all its Orban idiocy, I would consider Hungary to be the same civilization as well.
Quote from: Martinus on January 25, 2012, 12:57:12 PM
Roman citizenship was also quite exclusive, at least until Caracalla.
Actually, it wasn't. Everyone in Italy, bar slaves, was granted the citizenship three hundred years before Caracalla.
Quote from: Martinus on January 25, 2012, 01:03:23 PM
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.
Quote from: Viking on January 25, 2012, 12:08:11 PM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on January 25, 2012, 12:59:00 PM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on January 25, 2012, 01:03:21 PM
Well so was American citizenship.
In what was was American citizenship highly exclusive? :huh:
QuoteDid 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? :huh:
QuoteI 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.
:huh: 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.
Quote from: Valmy on January 25, 2012, 01:05:38 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 25, 2012, 01:03:23 PM
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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 25, 2012, 01:06:34 PM
Quote from: Viking on January 25, 2012, 12:08:11 PM
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.
Too many :huh:
Quote from: Martinus on January 25, 2012, 01:00:52 PM
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.
From Aristotle: (the Jowett translation, so focus on the gist)
QuoteAnd 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
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 25, 2012, 01:09:55 PM
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."
Quote from: grumbler on January 25, 2012, 01:09:58 PM
I have no idea what this question is attempting to do. Are you seriously asking if the concept of popular sovereignty predated 1919? :huh:
No I am pointing out how absurd it would be to clam that.
Quote:huh: 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.
Quote from: grumbler on January 25, 2012, 01:19:50 PM
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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 25, 2012, 01:16:18 PM
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! :lol:
Quote from: Valmy on January 25, 2012, 01:23:17 PM
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.
:huh: 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.
Quote from: Martinus on January 25, 2012, 01:00:52 PM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on January 25, 2012, 01:19:50 PM
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).
Quote from: Razgovory on January 25, 2012, 01:44:39 PM
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.
I am reminded of the Philhellines of the early 19th century, who went to Greece expecting to support the glorious descendants of the heroes and philosophers they had admired - only to find the actual 19th century Greeks a bit of a dissapointment.
Quote from: Malthus on January 25, 2012, 02:21:53 PM
I am reminded of the Philhellines of the early 19th century, who went to Greece expecting to support the glorious descendants of the heroes and philosophers they had admired - only to find the actual 19th century Greeks a bit of a dissapointment.
hah - you think they were disappointed? Imagine how disappointed the Greeks were when they expected to fight alongside the scions of great warriors and poets of old England - and then ended up having to nursemaid an incestuous, syphilitic wastrel like Lord Byron.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 25, 2012, 06:16:54 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 25, 2012, 02:21:53 PM
I am reminded of the Philhellines of the early 19th century, who went to Greece expecting to support the glorious descendants of the heroes and philosophers they had admired - only to find the actual 19th century Greeks a bit of a dissapointment.
hah - you think they were disappointed? Imagine how disappointed the Greeks were when they expected to fight alongside the scions of great warriors and poets of old England - and then ended up having to nursemaid an incestuous, syphilitic wastrel like Lord Byron.
:lol:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 25, 2012, 06:16:54 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 25, 2012, 02:21:53 PM
I am reminded of the Philhellines of the early 19th century, who went to Greece expecting to support the glorious descendants of the heroes and philosophers they had admired - only to find the actual 19th century Greeks a bit of a dissapointment.
hah - you think they were disappointed? Imagine how disappointed the Greeks were when they expected to fight alongside the scions of great warriors and poets of old England - and then ended up having to nursemaid an incestuous, syphilitic wastrel like Lord Byron.
Hah true. :D
Quote from: Valmy on January 25, 2012, 01:21:19 PM
Quote from: grumbler on January 25, 2012, 01:09:58 PM
I have no idea what this question is attempting to do. Are you seriously asking if the concept of popular sovereignty predated 1919? :huh:
No I am pointing out how absurd it would be to clam that.
Why on earth would it be absurd to claim that the concept of popular sovereignty predated 1919?
I think you're confusing popular sovereignty with the sufferage movement.
Quote from: Jacob on January 25, 2012, 12:43:13 PM
I'm pretty sure that, say, Icelandic democracy was as developed as the Greek version, and developed pretty much independently of the Greek philosophers - so I don't think popular sovereignty is a uniquely Greek invention in spite of the fact that we use the word they coined.
Greek Democracy was nothing like what we might today call Democracy, even limited franchise democracy. Greek Democracy ended Alcibiades, Plato and Alexander killed it. I didn't say Ancient Greece lacked democracy I said it lacked popular sovreignty. The idead that legitimacy arises from popular support did not exist in the ancient Greek world.
Icelandic Democracy is very much like what we today call Democracy, though limited franchise. It followed the germanic model of each farmer supporting a representative to attend the Thing. The representative or Godhi gained his right to speak and be heard by virtue of his freely (and sometimes coerced) support.
We use the Greek word, but we don't use Greek values, virtues or methods when running it. Victor David Hansen said that the Greeks would not recognize what we have a democracy and would consider it (rightly in my view) a barbarian custom (which it is).
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 25, 2012, 02:06:39 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 25, 2012, 01:44:39 PM
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.
My point was that these are the three conditions sine qua non for a modern nation to be considered "Western" (although I concede that the connection of Anglo-Saxons to Roman law is tenuous at best - perhaps we should say Roman and/or Germanic law). In that sense, a civilization that birthed one of the three and helped to birth another one can hardly be disregarded as non-Western (whether modern Greece is Western is another matter whatsoever). That is not to say that it is enough for a nation to fulfill all three criteria to be considered Western - it needs more than that.
That being said, Russia is considered a part of the Western civilization understood in the broadest possible sense (when opposed to such meta-civilizations as East Asian, Indian or Muslim). Within thus understood Western civilization you could differentiate between Latin, Orthodox, Anglo-Saxon as a subset of Latin etc.
Is Neo Venezia part of the west?
Quote from: Viking on January 26, 2012, 01:28:02 AM
Quote from: Jacob on January 25, 2012, 12:43:13 PM
I'm pretty sure that, say, Icelandic democracy was as developed as the Greek version, and developed pretty much independently of the Greek philosophers - so I don't think popular sovereignty is a uniquely Greek invention in spite of the fact that we use the word they coined.
Greek Democracy was nothing like what we might today call Democracy, even limited franchise democracy. Greek Democracy ended Alcibiades, Plato and Alexander killed it. I didn't say Ancient Greece lacked democracy I said it lacked popular sovreignty. The idead that legitimacy arises from popular support did not exist in the ancient Greek world.
Icelandic Democracy is very much like what we today call Democracy, though limited franchise. It followed the germanic model of each farmer supporting a representative to attend the Thing. The representative or Godhi gained his right to speak and be heard by virtue of his freely (and sometimes coerced) support.
We use the Greek word, but we don't use Greek values, virtues or methods when running it. Victor David Hansen said that the Greeks would not recognize what we have a democracy and would consider it (rightly in my view) a barbarian custom (which it is).
I am inclined to agree with you. The US and and UK draws at least as much from Germanic tribal democracy as from Greek Democracy.
Quote from: Martinus on January 26, 2012, 02:33:13 AM
My point was that these are the three conditions sine qua non for a modern nation to be considered "Western" (although I concede that the connection of Anglo-Saxons to Roman law is tenuous at best - perhaps we should say Roman and/or Germanic law). In that sense, a civilization that birthed one of the three and helped to birth another one can hardly be disregarded as non-Western (whether modern Greece is Western is another matter whatsoever). That is not to say that it is enough for a nation to fulfill all three criteria to be considered Western - it needs more than that.
That being said, Russia is considered a part of the Western civilization understood in the broadest possible sense (when opposed to such meta-civilizations as East Asian, Indian or Muslim). Within thus understood Western civilization you could differentiate between Latin, Orthodox, Anglo-Saxon as a subset of Latin etc.
I believe Egypt uses Roman law and probably studies ancient Greek philosophers. You could also go back further and point to the ancient middle East and say "We use agriculture, wheels, and written language" provided for us from the ancient Middle East.
Quote from: Viking on January 26, 2012, 01:28:02 AM
Greek Democracy was nothing like what we might today call Democracy, even limited franchise democracy . . . We use the Greek word, but we don't use Greek values, virtues or methods when running it. Victor David Hansen said that the Greeks would not recognize what we have a democracy and would consider it (rightly in my view) a barbarian custom (which it is).
Whatever one might say of the practices or custom of Greek democracy, the Greeks did something even more important than provide factual exemplars for democracy, they articulated a full-fledged theory of democracy, and theories of politics generally that still form the basis for how all "western" societies think about their politics and the constitution of their polities.
Once again returning to Book III in the Politics:
QuoteThe principle that the multitude ought to be supreme rather than the few best is one that is maintained, and, though not free from difficulty, yet seems to contain an element of truth. For the many, of whom each individual is but an ordinary person, when they meet together may very likely be better than the few good, if regarded not individually but collectively . . . For each individual among the many has a share of virtue and prudence, and when they meet together, they become in a manner one man, who has many feet, and hands, and senses . . . And if so, the difficulty which has been already raised, and also another which is akin to it -viz., what power should be assigned to the mass of freemen and citizens, who are not rich and have no personal merit- are both solved. There is still a danger in aflowing them to share the great offices of state, for their folly will lead them into error, and their dishonesty into crime. But there is a danger also in not letting them share, for a state in which many poor men are excluded from office will necessarily be full of enemies. The only way of escape is to assign to them some deliberative and judicial functions. For this reason Solon and certain other legislators give them the power of electing to offices, and of calling the magistrates to account, but they do not allow them to hold office singly. When they meet together their perceptions are quite good enough, and combined with the better class they are useful to the state . . . but each individual, left to himself, forms an imperfect judgment.
On the other hand, the popular form of government involves certain difficulties. . . . For a right election can only be made by those who have knowledge . . . So that, according to this argument, neither the election of magistrates, nor the calling of them to account, should be entrusted to the many. Yet possibly these objections are to a great extent met by our old answer, that if the people are not utterly degraded, although individually they may be worse judges than those who have special knowledge- as a body they are as good or better. . . .
This difficulty seems now to be sufficiently answered, but there is another akin to it. That inferior persons should have authority in greater matters than the good would appear to be a strange thing, yet the election and calling to account of the magistrates is the greatest of all. And these, as I was saying, are functions which in some states are assigned to the people, for the assembly is supreme in all such matters. Yet persons of any age, and having but a small property qualification, sit in the assembly and deliberate and judge, although for the great officers of state, such as treasurers and generals, a high qualification is required. This difficulty may be solved in the same manner as the preceding, and the present practice of democracies may be really defensible. For the power does not reside in the dicast, or senator, or ecclesiast, but in the court, and the senate, and the assembly, of which individual senators, or ecclesiasts, or dicasts, are only parts or members.
This one short passage alone is densely packed with fundamental ideas about the nature of democracies, of representative versus direct rule, of the benefits and detriments of different kinds of democractic regime which form the basis of how Western socities have thought about these questions and continue to think about them today. Pick up the Federalist Papers or Montesquieu or even the debates over post-Tahrir Square Egypt and you will see the same questions being talked about using Aristotle's framework.
Are the Greeks the first to think about this stuff, or were they the first to write it down?
Quote from: Razgovory on January 26, 2012, 07:28:24 PM
Are the Greeks the first to think about this stuff, or were they the first to write it down and have that writing be preserved down the centuries?
Amended.
Don't know.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 26, 2012, 07:39:58 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 26, 2012, 07:28:24 PM
Are the Greeks the first to think about this stuff, or were they the first to write it down and have that writing be preserved down the centuries?
Amended.
Don't know.
If the Greeks knew about others having thought like that first they would probably have preserved that tradition in their own writing. Is it possible that someone someplace had similar ideas but, in a socratic tirade against writing refused to write it down, or did write it down but such writing has been lost to us? Anything is possible I suppose.
It's really remarkable how little of the classical world survives. People considered luminaries in their time have their entire work lost to us. Even famous thinkers like Aristotle have lost works. Hell, whole fields of endeavor are lost. The Greeks had great painters you know. Not just on pottery and mosaics. They painted on wood rather then canvas. They had their great masters and artists in the field. How much of that survives? Almost none. A half dozen commercial portraits have been found in Egypt, where the tombs and dry air preserved them. We know they had some painters of great renown, and we even know a few names. But of their work nothing is known.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 26, 2012, 11:05:03 PM
It's really remarkable how little of the classical world survives. People considered luminaries in their time have their entire work lost to us. Even famous thinkers like Aristotle have lost works. Hell, whole fields of endeavor are lost. The Greeks had great painters you know. Not just on pottery and mosaics. They painted on wood rather then canvas. They had their great masters and artists in the field. How much of that survives? Almost none. A half dozen commercial portraits have been found in Egypt, where the tombs and dry air preserved them. We know they had some painters of great renown, and we even know a few names. But of their work nothing is known.
Not even the dust of our bones will remains.
I wonder how much of our glorious technological civilization would survive if humans were to disappear, or civilization to collapse, or what-have-you.
You can see how much is left of the dinosaur civilization.
If there's ever another dark age all our information will be lost. Try to get information off a cd or thumb drive without know how a computer works.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 26, 2012, 11:05:03 PM
It's really remarkable how little of the classical world survives. People considered luminaries in their time have their entire work lost to us. Even famous thinkers like Aristotle have lost works. Hell, whole fields of endeavor are lost. The Greeks had great painters you know. Not just on pottery and mosaics. They painted on wood rather then canvas. They had their great masters and artists in the field. How much of that survives? Almost none. A half dozen commercial portraits have been found in Egypt, where the tombs and dry air preserved them. We know they had some painters of great renown, and we even know a few names. But of their work nothing is known.
Yes, the Christian mob has much to answer for.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 26, 2012, 11:05:03 PM
It's really remarkable how little of the classical world survives. People considered luminaries in their time have their entire work lost to us. Even famous thinkers like Aristotle have lost works. Hell, whole fields of endeavor are lost. The Greeks had great painters you know. Not just on pottery and mosaics. They painted on wood rather then canvas. They had their great masters and artists in the field. How much of that survives? Almost none. A half dozen commercial portraits have been found in Egypt, where the tombs and dry air preserved them. We know they had some painters of great renown, and we even know a few names. But of their work nothing is known.
it's the "law" of archaeology: about 10% survives, the rest is lost. Mobs, disasters, decay, etc... It takes a massive bite out of what once was. And it seems to be more or les consistent through the ages if you exclude methods of data-storage. Once there's a decent ay of massproducing printed works at least that segment sees a better survival rate. But much is still lost.
I imagine it's related to how far back you go. I suspect we know much more about England in the high middle Ages then we do about Classical Rome.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 29, 2012, 11:26:02 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 26, 2012, 11:05:03 PM
It's really remarkable how little of the classical world survives. People considered luminaries in their time have their entire work lost to us. Even famous thinkers like Aristotle have lost works. Hell, whole fields of endeavor are lost. The Greeks had great painters you know. Not just on pottery and mosaics. They painted on wood rather then canvas. They had their great masters and artists in the field. How much of that survives? Almost none. A half dozen commercial portraits have been found in Egypt, where the tombs and dry air preserved them. We know they had some painters of great renown, and we even know a few names. But of their work nothing is known.
Yes, the Christian mob has much to answer for.
:yes:
There's still the unopened library in Pompeii which could contain a lot more.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 30, 2012, 06:10:54 AM
There's still the unopened library in Pompeii which could contain a lot more.
Maybe. Has any library card been found?
Quote from: Tamas on January 30, 2012, 04:07:35 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 29, 2012, 11:26:02 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 26, 2012, 11:05:03 PM
It's really remarkable how little of the classical world survives. People considered luminaries in their time have their entire work lost to us. Even famous thinkers like Aristotle have lost works. Hell, whole fields of endeavor are lost. The Greeks had great painters you know. Not just on pottery and mosaics. They painted on wood rather then canvas. They had their great masters and artists in the field. How much of that survives? Almost none. A half dozen commercial portraits have been found in Egypt, where the tombs and dry air preserved them. We know they had some painters of great renown, and we even know a few names. But of their work nothing is known.
Yes, the Christian mob has much to answer for.
:yes:
Julius Caesar: Crypto Christian time traveler.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 26, 2012, 11:05:03 PM
It's really remarkable how little of the classical world survives. People considered luminaries in their time have their entire work lost to us. Even famous thinkers like Aristotle have lost works. Hell, whole fields of endeavor are lost. The Greeks had great painters you know. Not just on pottery and mosaics. They painted on wood rather then canvas. They had their great masters and artists in the field. How much of that survives? Almost none. A half dozen commercial portraits have been found in Egypt, where the tombs and dry air preserved them. We know they had some painters of great renown, and we even know a few names. But of their work nothing is known.
Actually I find it amazing that so much has survived given the turmoil and strife of the past millenia. We're looking at times when we didn't have as many preservation efforts as we have today.