01-29-2019, 09:07 AM
(This post was last modified: 01-29-2019, 09:29 AM by Bill the Piper.)
My ideas:
*Excessive individualism
This is present in both left-wing and right-wing politics. On the Left, it's represented of self-actualisation, which gave us the divorce epidemics, experimenting with drugs and various unwholesome sexual behaviours. On the Right the individualism is more focused on economics. The concept of human rights is distinctly Western, and very individualistic. What is lacking is emphasis on duties of the individual toward society as a whole.
Other civilisations made the opposite mistake and focused too much on maintaining group cohesion, which resulted in repressing many innovative ideas and stopped these societies from developing. They could no longer compete with the West.
Even the Western political orientations that reject individualism try to appeal to it. Marxism and Nationalism both use the argument that their policies are in the interest of members of the proletariat or the nation, rather than any transcendent ideal.
*Legacy of Roman imperialism
This feature is not present in all Western ideologies, but it's persistent. Note that imperialism is not cosmopolitanism, because it requires maintaining the distinction between rulers and the ruled. German and Russian Empires literally claimed to be modern versions of the Roman Empire, where the core ethnicity was openly privileged. America and Britain look more like an updated version of the Roman Republic. Until recently, America played the role of the world's policeman, but it made no attempt to create a true global democracy. Earlier, the British Empire acted the same way. If they acted like true cosmopolitans, the murderous nationalist movements like Baathism wouldn't have ever existed.
Culturally, imperialism takes form of the notion of belief in a "correct culture" one has to know in order to be truly civilised. In the 19th and early 20th centuries it was about the knowledge of the Greeko-Roman classics and later "high culture". Listening to Tchaikovsky and Beethoven, reading Goethe, etc. Without them you are barbarian. Today, the anti-PC warriors like Jordan Peterson advocate returning to the classics. Personally I don't feel attracted to Western "high culture" at all.
When I was a neo-con, I believed the West is the universal civilisation which has outgrown tribalism, but the persistent distinction between Westerners and non-Westerners can be called super-tribalism.
Imperialism is not simply evil, though. Roman, British and American imperialism all often provided better government than local dynasties or theocracies. Even Russian occupation of the Caucasus and Central Asia was to an extent progressive, because it did away with shariah.
These features IMHO define Western ethics and political culture. I'm not sure about aesthetics, though. It's also important, but I'm not very knowledgeable about it
Yet another defining feature might be the West's rationalism. In principle I agree with this idea, so I won't devote a paragraph to criticise it. I'm only worried that too much rationalism can make you lose contact with your emotions. Without emotions we can never distinguish between Good and Evil. Westerners sometimes overlook it.
*Excessive individualism
This is present in both left-wing and right-wing politics. On the Left, it's represented of self-actualisation, which gave us the divorce epidemics, experimenting with drugs and various unwholesome sexual behaviours. On the Right the individualism is more focused on economics. The concept of human rights is distinctly Western, and very individualistic. What is lacking is emphasis on duties of the individual toward society as a whole.
Other civilisations made the opposite mistake and focused too much on maintaining group cohesion, which resulted in repressing many innovative ideas and stopped these societies from developing. They could no longer compete with the West.
Even the Western political orientations that reject individualism try to appeal to it. Marxism and Nationalism both use the argument that their policies are in the interest of members of the proletariat or the nation, rather than any transcendent ideal.
*Legacy of Roman imperialism
This feature is not present in all Western ideologies, but it's persistent. Note that imperialism is not cosmopolitanism, because it requires maintaining the distinction between rulers and the ruled. German and Russian Empires literally claimed to be modern versions of the Roman Empire, where the core ethnicity was openly privileged. America and Britain look more like an updated version of the Roman Republic. Until recently, America played the role of the world's policeman, but it made no attempt to create a true global democracy. Earlier, the British Empire acted the same way. If they acted like true cosmopolitans, the murderous nationalist movements like Baathism wouldn't have ever existed.
Culturally, imperialism takes form of the notion of belief in a "correct culture" one has to know in order to be truly civilised. In the 19th and early 20th centuries it was about the knowledge of the Greeko-Roman classics and later "high culture". Listening to Tchaikovsky and Beethoven, reading Goethe, etc. Without them you are barbarian. Today, the anti-PC warriors like Jordan Peterson advocate returning to the classics. Personally I don't feel attracted to Western "high culture" at all.
When I was a neo-con, I believed the West is the universal civilisation which has outgrown tribalism, but the persistent distinction between Westerners and non-Westerners can be called super-tribalism.
Imperialism is not simply evil, though. Roman, British and American imperialism all often provided better government than local dynasties or theocracies. Even Russian occupation of the Caucasus and Central Asia was to an extent progressive, because it did away with shariah.
These features IMHO define Western ethics and political culture. I'm not sure about aesthetics, though. It's also important, but I'm not very knowledgeable about it
Yet another defining feature might be the West's rationalism. In principle I agree with this idea, so I won't devote a paragraph to criticise it. I'm only worried that too much rationalism can make you lose contact with your emotions. Without emotions we can never distinguish between Good and Evil. Westerners sometimes overlook it.