Objectivism and "Western civilization"

Questions about Objectivism
21

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”.

22

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.

23

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.

24

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.

25

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.

26

Note also that this answers your question of German philosophers: they attempt to smuggle in the mystical Christian ideas - i.e. its non-Western elements - into Platonic thought, pushing its precarious balance into unreason. So are the Germans such as Hegel, Marx, Spinoza, and Wittgenstein Western? Sort of.

Basically, Platonic and Aristotelian thought are Western. Christian thought is half-Western (Platonic), half non-Western. The enlightenment was Aristotelian - entirely Western. Early German philosophers were counter-revolutionaries for Christian thought, which is partly non-Western, that used Platonic thought (Western) to attempt to undermine the Aristotelian (Western) enlightenment and substitute Christian (partly non-Western) thought.

[edited; added more]

27

While I don’t think “western civilization” is descriptive, referring to civilizations by geography is common. As it spreads all over, the term becomes less descriptive.

I think it is a poor choice of terminology to refer to a philosophy by geography, as in “western”. Much better to use a descriptive name like “Objectvism” or “Existentialism” or even (for aspects) “Capitalism”, “Communism” or “Socialism”. If there’s a single person at it’s root, something like “Aristotelianism” or “Randism” or “Calvinism” would be plausible but nowhere near as descriptive.

Either way, the term itself is really not that important. I’ll simply agree to disagree that “western thought” is a good way to name “reason based non-mystical thought”, unless one is using “western thought” as being synonymous with “western culture” – as a sort of average. The meatier question was in the other thread, concerning substance rather than name.

28

HOw about Classical / Enlightenment since that really fuses together the two periods that saw the most impact from these ideas?

29

While in some contexts it is certainly less than ideal, the term Western refers to the form that the historical battle of thought has taken. It explains the importance of the two (Greek) thinkers - Plato and Aristotle - and the entire sequence that I illustrated above. It also contains the key to the question of the other thread: why are intellectuals so Grecophilic? Because it really is all about Aristotelian and Platonic thought.

30

By the way, notice how ridiculous the idea is that “there can not be a civil, intellectual conversation” with me. And how laughable the idea is that I don’t have a “shred of evidence or even reasoning” to back up my point.

31

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.

I think you are right, I was a bit hasty. “Western thought” does include some referents which I did not intend to subsume.

However I do still think the term “western” can be used to accurately describe what we are talking about. As with the definition “rational animal” in which “rational” is used to differentiate man from all other non-rational animals so “western” can be used to differentiate from “eastern”. (When discussing culture or philosophy both these terms connote more than geography)

And then if you combine it with “civilization”, which implies another set of referents, I think the term “western civilization” can be used to denote a very specific set of ideas.

32

As with the definition “rational animal” in which “rational” is used to differentiate man from all other non-rational animals so “western” can be used to differentiate from “eastern”. (When discussing culture or philosophy both these terms connote more than geography)

The difference is the term “rational animal” is very literal and specific in its definition – an animal that is rational. Not so with the term “Western civilization”.

33

I think Western might be useful as a descriptor in the sense that it differentiates itself from the one other successful civilization in its scale, Eastern. While civilization does now and has existed in Africa, Australia and South America, they were predominantly tribal cultures with no overarching central theme that sets them apart or defines them well. Western and Eastern civilization have both been successful and continuous over a very long span of time with a fairly continuous advance of technology in all fields, from philosophy to silicon.

We could break it down and compare western reason and eastern pragmatism, or the western achievement of self-esteem by outside achievement to the eastern internal focus on finding your center, but most people have a good general grasp of what these two terms, western and eastern, mean. They might be better understood as two predominant types of “meta” culture. So as to not confuse the scale and put these two general themes in the same category as Thai culture or Bolivian Culture, for example.

34

Western and Eastern civilization have both been successful and continuous over a very long span of time with a fairly continuous advance of technology in all fields, from philosophy to silicon.

Eh? How has Eastern civilization “been successful and continuous over a very long span of time with a fairly continuous advance of technology in all fields, from philosophy to silicon?” What advancements would those be? And while stagnant tyranny may be continuous, how does it constitute a “success?”

35

Eh? How has Eastern civilization “been successful and continuous over a very long span of time with a fairly continuous advance of technology in all fields, from philosophy to silicon?” What advancements would those be? And while stagnant tyranny may be continuous, how does it constitute a “success?”

Sorry, I meant successful in the sense that it still exists. Unsuccessful cultures that do not let people stay alive and eat don’t last very long. Relatively speaking.

36

Sorry, I meant successful in the sense that it still exists.

Yes. In that sense.

37

The difference is the term “rational animal” is very literal and specific in its definition – an animal that is rational. Not so with the term “Western civilization”.

I do find “western civilization” to be very literal and specific it’s just that today there are a great number of referents to this concept, just as there are a great number of referents to the concept “man”.

In fact, taking a cue from aequalsa here:

They might be better understood as two predominant types of “meta” culture.

I’m going to go out on a limb and say that “western civilization” is redundant in the same way that “individual rights” is. I submit that all civilizations – that is, all civil organizations – are, when properly understood, “western” in nature – that is, they implement the ideas discovered by Aristotle and later expounded upon. To the degree a culture employs the western ideas of Aristotle, Locke and Rand it is civilized. To the degree it employs eastern philosophic ideas it is uncivilized.

Sorry, I meant successful in the sense that it still exists. Unsuccessful cultures that do not let people stay alive and eat don’t last very long. Relatively speaking.

The natural state of human beings is to be free and the only way you are not free is if someone is acting against you. So to the extent that an uncivilized culture is unsuccessful its people are free. In this fashion even civilized cultures that existed before Aristotle could be described as implicitly following “western” ideas.

38

I do find “western civilization” to be very literal and specific it’s just that today there are a great number of referents to this concept, just as there are a great number of referents to the concept “man”.

The definition of a word or a phrase is not decided by how you or a minority of people use it, but by how the general population understand the word to mean. You are right however that there are a great number of referents to this phrase. Hence the reason why I think the use of the term “Western civilization” to describe the said concept inadequate.

Note that if the term “Western civilization” does mean exclusively the philosophical concepts such as freedom, reason, and capitalism, then I would have no problem with its usage in this context. However I would argue that Jesus Christ for instance had a far greater influence on “Western civilization” than Ayn Rand, and at least equal if not greater influence than Aristotle.

I’m going to go out on a limb and say that “western civilization” is redundant in the same way that “individual rights” is. I submit that all civilizations – that is, all civil organizations – are, when properly understood, “western” in nature – that is, they implement the ideas discovered by Aristotle and later expounded upon. To the degree a culture employs the western ideas of Aristotle, Locke and Rand it is civilized. To the degree it employs eastern philosophic ideas it is uncivilized.

The word “civilization” describes the degree of organization within a group of people, generally one who has reached a certain (arbitrary) state in terms of culture, government, sciences, and industry. If you wish to come up with your personal definition of “civilization”, and then fit your argument around it, then naturally you can submit whatever you wish.

For instance I could denote the term “beef” as to mean only the filet mignon, and then proceed to argue that all other cuts, be it shank or brisket, cannot be considered beef.

*** Mod’s note: The answer to this has been split into

a separate thread about words and definitions ***

39

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).

Although some people use the term sloppily, most Objectivists I think when referring to the West refer to a system of government and so geography (e.g. whether the government is in Asia or Europe) or skin color are irrelevant. The Japanese government is Western.

40

I know this is rather late in the thread to come in, but from what I’ve seen people use “Western Civilization” as a euphemism because they are too polite or not smug enough to say “Civilization”, knowing that the proper antipode to this is “Barbarism”.

People will tolerate you saying that they don’t share in the values or ideology of Western Civilization but they don’t like being called barbarians even when they are.