Objectivism and "Western civilization"

[Whoisjohngalt]

Hi all,

I wanted to know how much objectivism is tied to "Western civilisation"? I have read some articles by objectivists and the authors seem to consider themselves as defenders of "Western civilisation". What is the position of objectivists on non-western civilisations? I am skeptical about such defending the so-called western civilisation as it sounds too White-racish. I am not accusing anybody here. Just wanted to know the general mood.

[Maarten]

In short, it is very much based on the fact that for all its faults Western Civilisation is orders of magnitude better than other cultures/civilisations in terms of how much freedom and respect of rights (real rights) there is in the countries that are commonly seen as part of this civilisation. I think it's mainly the far greater respect for rights and the influence of reason on the development of this civilisation that makes many Objectivists defend Western Civilisation.

[softwareNerd]

If one interprets support for western civilization as implying that it is superior because it is in the west, I could see that one would think that's illogical: after all, how can its longitude make it a better civilization? (Surely, latitude has more influence on human life than longitude does.). If location did not do it, then what did? These people in the west were lighter skinned than humans in some other parts of the globe. However, even though white civilization is superior, it is not so because it was white.

The term "white civilization" would be a bad term. It might be interpreted as more than a mere reference to a particular civilization, it might be interpreted as smeaning that being white is a causal factor. On the other hand, if one uses the term "western civilization" there is little risk of anyone thinking that it is superior because of its longitude. People will understand that one is referring to a particular civilization, not implying causes.

Having said that, the term "western civilization" is not a good one because it does not go to essentials. However, it's the typically used term to refer to this particular thing: the philosophy of reason and the culture that formed around it, which happened to be discovered and pursued most consistently in Western Europe and then in America. I wish a better term was commonly used; but most people do understand what one really means by it.

If the point you're making is more about advertising, and advocacy and how others will interpret the message, then you might have a point. If people think you're saying this civilization is good because it is white, they don't understand what you're saying. However, more likely, people who object to the term are objecting to the idea that one civilization can ever be classified as being better than another. They think something on the lines of "if the Saudis want to live the way they do, that's fine for them; if the U.S. doesn't want to live that way, they don't have to; but, the U.S. ought not to claim that it's way of living is any better than the Saudi way". This would be a case of people interpreting one correctly, and disagreeing with the essence. So, if this is the type of debate the term causes -- with the Objectivist point being that some civilization are actually better than others -- then the term is well-used.

With western civilization making its way across the globe, it would be nice if we had some other well-understood term that was not tied to longitude, but still got across the idea of a one type of civilization being better than another.

[Whoisjohngalt]

In short, it is very much based on the fact that for all its faults Western Civilisation is orders of magnitude better than other cultures/civilisations in terms of how much freedom and respect of rights (real rights) there is in the countries that are commonly seen as part of this civilisation. I think it's mainly the far greater respect for rights and the influence of reason on the development of this civilisation that makes many Objectivists defend Western Civilisation.

I agree that Western civilisation has more respect on rights and reason has influenced the development of this civilisation. Are you saying no other civilisation has such qualities? If so I think that this may be a dogmatic/irrational position.

If one interprets support for western civilization as implying that it is superior because it is in the west, I could see that one would think that's illogical: after all, how can its longitude make it a better civilization? (Surely, latitude has more influence on human life than longitude does.). If location did not do it, then what did? These people in the west were lighter skinned than humans in some other parts of the globe. However, even though white civilization is superior, it is not so because it was white.

....

softwareNerd, would you agree that any civilisation that supports rational thinking, freedom and the like would be "objectivistically" worth defending? I thought this is what your words imply.

[Maarten]

I agree that Western civilisation has more respect on rights and reason has influenced the development of this civilisation. Are you saying no other civilisation has such qualities? If so I think that this may be a dogmatic/irrational position.

Not to the extent that the West has such qualities. That is why one can say that the West is objectively better than most other countries. At some point if a country in Asia (for example) improves so much that it is comparable or even better than many Western countries one could count them among the West, or alter the term to reflect the new state of the world (for example Japan is usually seen as being a Western country even though it's far away from Europe/US).

[softwareNerd]

Would you agree that any civilisation that supports rational thinking, freedom and the like would be ... worth defending?

Certainly. In fundamental terms, one must defend rationality first and foremost, rather than a civilization that happens to have more of it. Supporting that civilization is a derivative of ones support form rationality. When appropriate, one may also take the time to point out that one is not supporting (say) hippies. Edited October 12, 2006 by softwareNerd

[DavidOdden]

I agree that Western civilisation has more respect on rights and reason has influenced the development of this civilisation. Are you saying no other civilisation has such qualities? If so I think that this may be a dogmatic/irrational position.

First, this reference to "Western Civilisation" does not mean, generically, "any civilisation of Europe" or "everything done in the west", it really refers to the civilisation rooted in Ancient Greece. Second, it doesn't mean just those developments taking place geographically in Western Europe. Modern Japan, for example (as Maarten pointed out), is largely a part of the civilization that we mean; that would also include Modern India, but not Traditional India. This is a factual claim -- if you think that the philosophical and cultural developments of the Aztecs were superior to that of the west, you can make your argument.

Also remember that Western civilisation is still alive, so when we speak admiringly of Western civilisation, we're talking about something actually alive now. Ancient Chinese civilisation, Mayan civilisation, and the "Golden Age" Islamic civilisation (of the caliphate of Baghdad) are extinct. Classical Indian civilisation has given way (is giving way) to expending Western civilisation. The same with China -- in bits and pieces, the Chinese are slowly embracing Western civilisation. If you want to compare Western civilisation with a "competitor", it would have to be an extinct civilisation. What the West is marginally competing with, in Islam, is not a civilisation.

[Whoisjohngalt]

First, this reference to "Western Civilisation" does not mean, generically, "any civilisation of Europe" or "everything done in the west", it really refers to the civilisation rooted in Ancient Greece. Second, it doesn't mean just those developments taking place geographically in Western Europe. Modern Japan, for example (as Maarten pointed out), is largely a part of the civilization that we mean; that would also include Modern India, but not Traditional India. This is a factual claim -- if you think that the philosophical and cultural developments of the Aztecs were superior to that of the west, you can make your argument.

Also remember that Western civilisation is still alive, so when we speak admiringly of Western civilisation, we're talking about something actually alive now. Ancient Chinese civilisation, Mayan civilisation, and the "Golden Age" Islamic civilisation (of the caliphate of Baghdad) are extinct. Classical Indian civilisation has given way (is giving way) to expending Western civilisation. The same with China -- in bits and pieces, the Chinese are slowly embracing Western civilisation. If you want to compare Western civilisation with a "competitor", it would have to be an extinct civilisation. What the West is marginally competing with, in Islam, is not a civilisation.

The tradition of thought as a continuation of the Greek civilisation is a very important point you bring up. There was a lot of give and take between the Greeks and the Indians as I learn from the history books. India too is "competing" with Islam but we are largely crippled by lack of freedom and rationalism.

On the other hand, do you think the christian influence on the western civilisation has been something worthwhile or natural or is it a sore-spot, because Christianity had cut off all freedom and rationality during the Dark Ages?

I agree with most of your other points. But, living in India, I know that the so-called "modern" India is really a mockery on the term. The British rule left us impoverished (we were the richest people before that) and the disease of socialism/communism that had taken over the minds of our political class was largely a result of "British socialism" or Fabian socialism introduced to Indian intellectuals from England. I feel socialism/communism is a carryover of the religious dogma and clerical control over society. The most fundamementalist marxists/stalinists/leninists exist in India even today. There is really no intellectual freedom here. I mean, the moment one is discovered as an anti-communist, one's prospects are not too good. India has been ever since independence controlled by the "looters" as Rand called them. But thankfully, a few people are waking up to freedom with the rise of free market.

[softwareNerd]

Of the terms that would be widely understood, I suppose "Modern Civilization" works best.

British rule left us impoverished (we were the richest people before that) ...

I disagree that India was impoverished by colonialism; but, I won't respond to this point here, because there's a separate thread that is closer to the topic.

[Solid_Choke]

Not to the extent that the West has such qualities. That is why one can say that the West is objectively better than most other countries. At some point if a country in Asia (for example) improves so much that it is comparable or even better than many Western countries one could count them among the West, or alter the term to reflect the new state of the world (for example Japan is usually seen as being a Western country even though it's far away from Europe/US).

Don't forget Hong Kong(although admittedly it isn't a country). When I compare Hong Kong to the U.S. I can't help but see Hong Kong as more Capitalist.

[DavidOdden]

On the other hand, do you think the christian influence on the western civilisation has been something worthwhile or natural or is it a sore-spot, because Christianity had cut off all freedom and rationality during the Dark Ages?

Yes and no. At the heart of the issue, I don't think there are any benefits arising from Christianity just as I don't think that the Islamic paradise of al-Andalus arose from Islam -- these were positive events that arose despite the underlying religion. In the case of Islam, the philosophical framework that created these pinnacles of civilisation were utterly destroyed by al-Ghazali's faith-based initiative. Same, to a lesser extent, with Christianity.

But, living in India, I know that the so-called "modern" India is really a mockery on the term. The British rule left us impoverished (we were the richest people before that) and the disease of socialism/communism that had taken over the minds of our political class was largely a result of "British socialism" or Fabian socialism introduced to Indian intellectuals from England.

Well, from the perspective of the entirety of Indian history I could see how you'd think that I was referring to The Glorious Raj, whereas I was primarily referring to the developments of the past few years. I am aware that the majority of the population of India is still living in Traditional India, but I'm predicting that the trend of moving to Modern India will continue and accelerate. Vimana salesman will be replaced by Mercedes salesman, because Mercedes salesman actually deliver their product.

[Whoisjohngalt]

Well, from the perspective of the entirety of Indian history I could see how you'd think that I was referring to The Glorious Raj, whereas I was primarily referring to the developments of the past few years. I am aware that the majority of the population of India is still living in Traditional India, but I'm predicting that the trend of moving to Modern India will continue and accelerate. Vimana salesman will be replaced by Mercedes salesman, because Mercedes salesman actually deliver their product.

Vimana salesman

I don't think describing the British Raj as "glorious" would be doing justice. But yes, during the last 10 or 15 years, our economy is slowly transforming into an open market.

And yes, the majority of Indians are still farmers.

[softwareNerd]

Vimana salesman

I think David's talking about the mention of flying "vimana" in ancient Indian texts, and the fact that a few people seriously think that ancient India had this cool technology of flight, mistaking science-fiction and aspiration for real developments.

Either way, just some humor.

[Moebius]

If one interprets support for western civilization as implying that it is superior because it is in the west, I could see that one would think that's illogical: after all, how can its longitude make it a better civilization? (Surely, latitude has more influence on human life than longitude does.). If location did not do it, then what did? These people in the west were lighter skinned than humans in some other parts of the globe. However, even though white civilization is superior, it is not so because it was white.

The term "white civilization" would be a bad term. It might be interpreted as more than a mere reference to a particular civilization, it might be interpreted as smeaning that being white is a causal factor. On the other hand, if one uses the term "western civilization" there is little risk of anyone thinking that it is superior because of its longitude. People will understand that one is referring to a particular civilization, not implying causes.

Having said that, the term "western civilization" is not a good one because it does not go to essentials. However, it's the typically used term to refer to this particular thing: the philosophy of reason and the culture that formed around it, which happened to be discovered and pursued most consistently in Western Europe and then in America. I wish a better term was commonly used; but most people do understand what one really means by it.

If the point you're making is more about advertising, and advocacy and how others will interpret the message, then you might have a point. If people think you're saying this civilization is good because it is white, they don't understand what you're saying. However, more likely, people who object to the term are objecting to the idea that one civilization can ever be classified as being better than another. They think something on the lines of "if the Saudis want to live the way they do, that's fine for them; if the U.S. doesn't want to live that way, they don't have to; but, the U.S. ought not to claim that it's way of living is any better than the Saudi way". This would be a case of people interpreting one correctly, and disagreeing with the essence. So, if this is the type of debate the term causes -- with the Objectivist point being that some civilization are actually better than others -- then the term is well-used.

With western civilization making its way across the globe, it would be nice if we had some other well-understood term that was not tied to longitude, but still got across the idea of a one type of civilization being better than another.

Wow. I just want to say that this is a really well written post, and elucidates the cause for a lot of confusion when discussing the "Western civilization".

I agree that "Western civilization" is not really an adequate term for describing what we're really talking about here -- a civilization based on reason, capitalism, and individual rights. It's a loaded term that carries many implications other than the aforementioned values. If you ask a modern Japanese citizen whether they are a part of the "Western civilization", I will almost guarantee that the answer would be a resounding "no". It's not that you would necessarily wrong if you consider them one using the definition stated by SoftwareNerd, but that it simply isn't the normal way that a person take the term to mean.

In the Greek and Chinese civilization post, I tried to make a similar point but really was no where near as clear as the above post. What I said was that I consider values such as reason, capitalism, and individual rights to be "Humanization" rather than "Westernization". By that I simply meant that those are the values that should be practiced by any rational human civilization, and not just the West. And I ended up being accused to claiming that "all civilizations are equal" by David Odden and that I "wasn't giving enough credit to the West" by Inspector. The bottom line is that there are many values that are invented in the West, for instance many of those which are based on Judaeo-Christianity, that are also included when people generally use the term "Western".

By the way, SoftwareNerd, I also concur that the term "MODERN CIVILIZATION" is probably a much better term when describing the type of values that we are discussing.

[Moebius]

First, this reference to "Western Civilisation" does not mean, generically, "any civilisation of Europe" or "everything done in the west", it really refers to the civilisation rooted in Ancient Greece. Second, it doesn't mean just those developments taking place geographically in Western Europe. Modern Japan, for example (as Maarten pointed out), is largely a part of the civilization that we mean; that would also include Modern India, but not Traditional India.

Actually, I do not think it is necessarily clear that when one use the term "Western Civilization", it is necessarily clear at all that it refers to civilizations rooted in Ancient Greece. At least, it clearly isn't when used in daily vernaculars. I suppose you could argue that when discussing "Western Civilization" in the context of a philosophy forum that that is what it means, but even then I do not think that it is necessarily obvious. It isn't clear to me at least that the term necessarily separates, say, Christian values, from the rational ones.

As I mentioned as a case in point of the confusion this term causes -- you consider Modern Japan a "Western Civilization", whereas a modern Japanese most likely would not.

[Marc K.]

By the way, SoftwareNerd, I also concur that the term "MODERN CIVILIZATION" is probably a much better term when describing the type of values that we are discussing.

I agree that SoftwareNerd's post was excellent. I would disagree though that the term "western" is non-essential. In my view it derives from "western thought", meaning: the ideas following logically from observing reality. Meaning: the ideas first discovered by Aristotle and expounded upon by Locke and Rand.

"Modern" is not a good descriptor because it only defines a time. A time in which there have been some very good and some very bad cultures. It is definition by non-essentials.

And this is where you got into trouble on the other thread. DavidOdden and Inspector are talking about the essentials that define a culture and you are not. They are talking about very important things like reason, rights and ethics and you are talking about spices and then equivocating that their culture isn't so bad. It tends to upset those that take ideas seriously.

[softwareNerd]

I've re-opened the other thread. Be good people

[Inspector]

And this is where you got into trouble on the other thread. DavidOdden and Inspector are talking about the essentials that define a culture and you are not. They are talking about very important things like reason, rights and ethics and you are talking about spices and then equivocating that their culture isn't so bad. It tends to upset those that take ideas seriously.

Bingo, exactly. We'd do well to settle the matter of what precisely is meant by "Western Civilization" before saying what's better than what.

When we talk here, on a philosophy forum about Western Civilization, we naturally are discussing a culture's ideas, specifically the reality-based metaphysics, reason-based epistemology, and more recently, rights-based politics that were invented by Western Civilization. These ideas did not originate in the East. All Eastern cultures that have adopted parts of these ideas have done so directly because of learning them from the West. (and often, being conquered by a more powerful West. More powerful because of these ideas) They are not a part of Eastern Culture - they are an alien element to it. These ideas cannot be integrated with Eastern culture because they run against what Eastern culture is at its very core. It would be impossible for a culture to adopt these ideas and remain essentially Eastern - because these ideas represent what is essentially Western! (see how that works?)

It would be possible for an Eastern nation to become essentially Western while remaining superficially Eastern - i.e. keeping traditional foods, some fashions, etc. I.e. ideas that are philosophically inessential and meaningless. That is precisely what I meant by "I don't care how you spice your food." (Japan, btw, is somewhere in between - at a precarious mixture)

[softwareNerd]

I would disagree though that the term "western" is non-essential. In my view it derives from "western thought", meaning: the ideas following logically from observing reality. Meaning: the ideas first discovered by Aristotle and expounded upon by Locke and Rand.

That raise a question. Does the term "western ideas" also include the following among its referents: Judeo-Christian ideas, Marxism, Kant, Plato, the Sophists, the multiculturalists and so on? Edited June 27, 2007 by softwareNerd

[Inspector]

That raise a question. Does the term "western ideas" also include the following among its referents: Judeo-Christian ideas, Marxism, Kant, Plato, the Sophists, the multiculturalists and so on?

If Western Civilization is to refer specifically to the Greek discoveries of a reality-based Metaphysics and reason-based epistemology, and ideas which continue that line, then those are anti-Western ideas, regardless of geographical origin.

[softwareNerd]

Fair enough, Inspector, so when you think of the term "Western Philosophy" you're excluding all philosophers who happened to live in the west, if they deviated significantly (or preached against) the line that we commonly trace from Aristotle, via Aquinas, and perhaps people like Locke and some such "mixed-others" along the way. So, Hegel, Marx, Spinoza, Wittgenstein and the like are not "Western Philosophers" in your conception of the term. Is that correct?

The question is not rhetorical. I think it's important to understand what set of referents we each mean, otherwise, we'll be talking at cross-purposes. [Added: Actually, it's not so much a question, as it is a re-statement of what I think you're saying. I'm restating to clarify, because in common usage those philosophers would also be termed "western".]

It'll be interesting to seeing if Marc K. and others subsume different referents in their conception of "western philosophers".

Edited June 27, 2007 by softwareNerd
Added clarification

[Inspector]

Fair enough, Inspector, so when you think of the term "Western Philosophy"

Whoa, careful there. Now you've switched from "Western Civilization," which refers to a specific civilization and philosophic base, to "Western Philosophy" which is an entirely different animal.

[softwareNerd]

Thanks for pointing that out. I'm glad I asked for the clarification. I switched to asking about western philosophers because of Marc's reasoning that "western" is of essence because western civilization derives from "western thought". I wonder if "western thought" or "western philosophy" is a useful term.

[Moebius]

I agree that SoftwareNerd's post was excellent. I would disagree though that the term "western" is non-essential. In my view it derives from "western thought", meaning: the ideas following logically from observing reality. Meaning: the ideas first discovered by Aristotle and expounded upon by Locke and Rand.

But that is precisely my point -- your definition is not actually self-evident. It does not describe the totality of what is generally considered "western thought", which, by definition should include any important thought that comes out of the west.

"Modern" is not a good descriptor because it only defines a time. A time in which there have been some very good and some very bad cultures. It is definition by non-essentials.

Yes but a civilization based on reason and capitalism is clearly the dominant culture in "modern age". You could just as well argue that "Western" is not a good descriptor because it only defines a "direction" or "geography", and hence definition by non-essentials.

It goes back to the original question of how this term is generally understood. "Western culture" to most people would mean any European culture. Even in the context of philosophy, it would mean any philosophy that arised in the West -- even those with values based on Judaeo-Christianity. It does not unequivocally equate "reason and capitalism".

And this is where you got into trouble on the other thread. DavidOdden and Inspector are talking about the essentials that define a culture and you are not. They are talking about very important things like reason, rights and ethics and you are talking about spices and then equivocating that their culture isn't so bad. It tends to upset those that take ideas seriously.

When was I ever talking about spices? For that matter, when did I say that their culture isn't so bad because of their spices or what not? I was talking about equivocating rationality with the term "Western culture". I do give credit to the Greeks for sowing the seed, and others for refining the ideals - I just don't consider them as representing "Western culture" in its totality.

[Inspector]

I wonder if "western thought" or "western philosophy" is a useful term.

I think they are, although for different purposes. Plato was the origin of mystical Western thought, and you can trace other tyrannical Western traditions to him, including Christianity.

All post-Greek thought has been shaped by it, even the bad. You could very much say there have been two Western traditions - Platonic and Aristotelian. But Western tyrannies, notice, tend to bother with the attempt at reasoning, because for all his flaws, Plato was a Greek. All Western thought has had to at least contend with Greek thought.

Whereas the ageless, eternally stagnant tyrannies that are non-Western cultures have ground the individual into dust across the centuries unhindered by such trappings. Geographically Western tyrannies, both pre-Greek and post-Greek (such as the Germans or Druids) matched the tribal savagery of Africa and the New World, but have never approached the total human-anthills of the East. And that savagery which has existed in the West both pre and post Greek cannot properly be called either civilization or thought - they are merely the absence of both! So once again, Western thought comes down to Plato and Aristotle.

Notice especially that Christianity is so bad precisely because of its non-Greek elements. (i.e. non-Western elements) It is like a retrovirus, meant to transform the West into non-western mysticism by way of using how Plato's ideas undermine reality and reason.