COMMENTS:
Voted : Yes, of course
I think it is.
Don't make me post that picture of a Chinese dude eating a baby.
Voted : Yes, of course
Yes.
Any culture that embraces individual liberties, religious freedom, the supremacy of science and reason over superstition and fear will succeed.
Western civilization happens to be the only one at the time that covers all those points.
Voted : No, not at all
I have to ask, is the west really so superior?
Lets look at Herzogs examples.
Embracing liberties: Hmmm so the Patriot Act in the US and blanket coverage of the UK by CCTV is a boon to this is it?
Religious freedom: Only, it seems if you are a Christian, heaven forfend if you are a Muslim.
Supremacy of science and reason over superstition: Again, when a government is hijacked by fundamentalist ideas, sciences like Stem Cell research and the qquestion over wether a woman has a right to control her own body seems to contradict this.
The East is not perfect either, but if you look for neatives you will find them.
The East has to go through a sort of reformation in their religious beliefs, and eventually that will come, but their culture is a rich and vibrant one and something we should treasure not swept away in the hysteria of jingoistic fervour.
Superior is such a subjective word, I would prefer more developed.
Voted : Yes, of course
We rock
by ABC on Tue Nov 28, 06 10:53am
[+]
" Embracing liberties: Hmmm so the Patriot Act in the US and blanket coverage of the UK by CCTV is a boon to this is it?"
Please.
Try an experiment for me. Go to your nearest uniformed police officer, military leader, local politician, etc. Any recognizable government figure. Tell him that you hate tony blair, britain, british culture and that jesus christ can kiss your pasty british ass.
Likely he'll ignore you or tell you to move along.
Try this in Iran. Find a cop, or defender of virture, tell him that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei can go to hell, along with the rest of Iran, and that allah can kiss your pasty british ass.
See if the response is the same in both scenarios.
I'm guessing not.
There's your eastern/western comparison on freedom. We arrest terrorists, they kill anyone who questions the government. Pick one.
" Supremacy of science and reason over superstition: Again, when a government is hijacked by fundamentalist ideas, sciences like Stem Cell research and the qquestion over wether a woman has a right to control her own body seems to contradict this."
Abortions have nothing to do with science, they've been around as long as we have. It's a moral question, same with stem cells. Questioning the extent to which science should be allowed to take us is not the same as swearing off science alltogether. Europe I believe has some issues with GM crops, would you say you are a bunch of superstitious, backwoods, hicks? Or are you merely limiting what you believe to be an unsafe direction science has taken us?
Another question: when a disease is killing thousands in your country do you A) look for a likely cause, experiment with different treatments until you invent a cure, then wipe it out or B) deem that the gods are angry and find someone to sacrifice?
It might seem obvious but to most of the world B is the more likely choice. Look at the re-emergence of polio in africa because they believe vaccines are bad magic, and prefer to stick with prayer.
" Religious freedom: Only, it seems if you are a Christian, heaven forfend if you are a Muslim."
That is bullshit and you know it.
Openly practice any religion you want here and nothing will happen.
Go be a jew in Iran, or anything in China.
I never said everything the east has produced is evil. They have an interesting culture, their food, music, art, history, etc all have merits.
But it is inferior to ours as long as they ignore the basic concepts of enlightenment that I have laid out.
Voted : No, not at all
Is civilization in general superior? IMO, no. Those who disagree, open up the home page of any newsservice you can find.
Steelhamster- the question was not 'Is the West perfect?', the question was, relative to other civilizations, is at least better than them? So what I want is a comparison between civilizations, and NOT just what you see wrong with the West in general.
Of course there are parts of other civilizations that excellent. For example Taoism. I love Taoist philosophy. However, paradoxically, I am more free to practice it here than I am able to in China.
Furthermore, another thing that makes the West superior is that we have embraced to a large extent the good and desirable parts of otehr cultures. The West is not a 'Christian civilzation', it is a multicultural one with many different religious groups, all of which are expected to adhere to the separation of religion and state, and individual rights. I am not Christian, and I am very free to follow and develop any interest in any of the religions. I could convert to Islam right now if I wanted (and many Westerners actually have). It is pluralism that also makes the West superior. What could be greater than that? Many immigrants have taken parts of their culture, become citizens of Western countries, and have adapted their cultures into the culture of individual rights and so on. Furthermore, your criticisms of the West further reinforce the idea that the West is superior. Is there any other civilization that self-critiques itself as much as the West does? Self-criticism implies a desire for further progress and improvement and is very much a positive quality. It is what allows the West to continue to develop, while other civilizations, with limits on civilzational self-criticism are stagnant and static relatively.
The fact is, there is more emphasis on individual liberties in the West than elsewhere. In other civilzations, the interests of the individual is subordinated by the interests of the state, of society's commands, and of the family (familism to the extreme is not good- eg, Asian children instructed what jobs to get, what friends they can have, and who they can date, and so on).
I would also like to women's rights, toleration of homosexuality, more open-minded toward immigration, a culture where interracial marriage is okay, a work ethic that has helped it to improve the economic conditions of many. To add to this, the West has many subcultures- such as the New Age culture, and many more. The West is often criticised as being overly-matierialistic, but really there is freedom to rebel against this. Materialism is a choice, a choice that many choose to reject. Many do freely choose not to involve themselves in over-materialism, and openly criticise it..
Dr. D. - The West is culturally more developed? So, the other civilizations are have cultures that are underdeveloped in comparison? The West is leading the way, and the others should emulate?
herzog- "Western civilization happens to be the only one at the time that covers all those points."
- Japanese civilization has progressed on these points. But they could improve their democracy a bit.
Voted : Yes, of course
Clearly
"But it is inferior to ours as long as they ignore the basic concepts of enlightenment that I have laid out."
Herzog, and how did the West get to that place? How can a democracy exist? People need to be economically self-sustaining correct? Well, it's hard for other countries to catch up when the West controls 95% of the worlds resources. Besides, when you go off spouting the West is better than everyone else, how are other countries supposed to improve themselves with dictators propped up or supported by other nations? For example, if you think that other nations should stop crying about how terrible their situation is, what would you suggest to the Ogani people of Nigeria? Shell Oil came in and started decimating their land, then when the Ogani demanded that Shell compansate them, they were crushed by the police supported by Shell. They were only doing what they thought was right: standing up for themselves. Besides, you, Soc, Thc, think Western civilization is superiour b/c you are Westerners, if you lived in another place, you would probably think that culture is superiour.
by aya on Wed Nov 29, 06 7:08am
[+]
aya- "Besides, you, Soc, Thc, think Western civilization is superiour b/c you are Westerners, if you lived in another place, you would probably think that culture is superiour."
- There are plenty of non-Westerners that think the Western values are desirable and superior.
I dont think its a case of which is superior, we may all sit on our laurels and pat ourselves on the back for having such a superior civilisation, but I merely point out that it is a matter of perspective.
We can all look to the East and point out all the failings, but these countries are mainly under the thrall of the theocracy.
To their eyes, we are decadent, immoral and lacking in social cohesion.
I feel blessed to have been born in a society that doesnt condemn me to starvation, but it is blind luck that it happened that way.
Our feeling of cultural superiority is a facade as we are all morally bankrupt when we sit in our ivory towers passing judgement on this and that culture while we still have homelessnes, poverty and poor health on our own doorstep.
Aya: You're confusing the symptom for the disease, so to speak.
Europe hasn't always been wealthy, well-fed, or in control of "95%" of the worlds wealth.
WE have acheived all that because we hold the values I listed, we did not develop those values after someonehow, inexplicably, being blessed with wealth and technology.
We developed those because we are free. We did not become free because we were wealthy.
I think this much is obvious. Look back through history, was the west always the wealthiest, most powerful, and according to you, most brutal imperialists in the world? Obviously not.
And I think the world has voted, immigration favors the west.
Few americans are fleeing to china, few europeans are rushing off to live in africa. But the converse is certainly true. WHy is that do you suppose?
You are a free woman living in the west, would you choose to move to the east? China, vietnam, north korea, pakistan, iran, etc? Or would you prefer to stay here?
"We can all look to the East and point out all the failings, but these countries are mainly under the thrall of the theocracy."
Kind of proves my point, doesn't it? How great is a culture that consistently puts up theocracies to rule them like slaves? We had theocracies in the west, we did away with them once we became civilized.
Like aya you are confusing the symptom for the cause.
SH- "To their eyes, we are decadent, immoral and lacking in social cohesion."
- OF course a lot think like that. Their insistence that their ways are superior also contributes to the Clash of Civilizations, which is indeed occuring. They think there is too much freedom in the West- those are backward barbarians to believe that.
"And I think the world has voted, immigration favors the west."
- Before someone steps in to say it is only the wealth of the West that attracts them- then why do Asians not just go to Japan in large numbers? Why do they go to the West, which is further away, and probably has less in common with their native culture?
And once again I reassert that Western civilization is partly superior because it has brought in the parts of other cultures that are good, and embraced them. For example, I'm more free to practice my Taoism in the West than I would be in China. Why am I even practicing Taoism? I'm not ethnic Chinese, Korean or Vietnamese. I didn't inherit the fascination from my parents. It is simply that I developed an individual fascination for it. I am glad that the state, society, and family does not reprimand me for my decision to do so.
It is the freedom of conscience and rugged individualism.
"Europe hasn't always been wealthy, well-fed, or in control of "95%" of the worlds wealth"
Controlling 95% of the world's weath might have something to do with the fact that other countries are so poor?
"WE have acheived all that because we hold the values I listed, we did not develop those values after someonehow, inexplicably, being blessed with wealth and technology."
Don't forget the fact that the CIA has played a huge role in undermining foriegn governments that were democratically elected, as have western corporations.
"We developed those because we are free. We did not become free because we were wealthy. "
How can a democracy exist if the people cannot, at a base level afford to feed and clothe themselves independently?
"I think this much is obvious. Look back through history, was the west always the wealthiest, most powerful, and according to you, most brutal imperialists in the world? Obviously not. "
Uh,, did I say that. NO. you're putting words in my mouth.
"Kind of proves my point, doesn't it? How great is a culture that consistently puts up theocracies to rule them like slaves? We had theocracies in the west, we did away with them once we became civilized."
Does civilization also require supporting sweatshops, and undemocratic regimes? Overthrowing foreign governments? Maybe part of their hindrence comes from foriegn impedimements. Ever think of that?
by aya on Mon Jul 30, 07 1:32pm
[+]
Voted : No, not at all
Different, certainly. Has different values, definitely. Superior - does not really apply.
The West, and other free countries, such as Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, have indeed made more progress on many social issues. Latin America too to a large extent.
aya- "Controlling 95% of the world's weath might have something to do with the fact that other countries are so poor?"
- Being poor isn't the issue at hand. For example, Brazil is a developing nation, yet culturally it is more civilised than say Saudi Arabia.
"Don't forget the fact that the CIA has played a huge role in undermining foriegn governments that were democratically elected, as have western corporations."
- Simply being democratically elected does not mean that a government respects individual rights. Hamas for example was democratically elected and I would seriously hesitate in saying that they follow the Enlightenment because of it.
"How can a democracy exist if the people cannot, at a base level afford to feed and clothe themselves independently?"
- There are plenty of democracies that are in developing countries. Currently Latin America is a good example of that. Freedom comes first and then wealth. I'll use South Korea as an example: it was once terribly impoverished, war-torn by both the second world war and their civil war with the north, yet through free markets and individual economic rights, they were able to become wealthy.
"Does civilization also require supporting sweatshops, and undemocratic regimes? Overthrowing foreign governments? Maybe part of their hindrence comes from foriegn impedimements. Ever think of that?"
- Sweatshops are regrettable. However, realistically, every single developed nation, including the Western nations went through a period of transition of that, after which through proper economic management of the situation they were able to become developed. The West did it, Japan did it, Taiwan and South Korea did it. One does not become a developed nation over night- this period of transition has historically been used. So for countries like China, for example, it is probably in the Free World's and China's interest to economically engage China and not isolate it. Regardless of what the Free World does, there will be poor conditions in China. Yet, with the correct involvement with this in the present, there may be hope for a better China in the future. This is a much better direction to go in rather than leaving countries like China economically isolated and thus most-likely stagnant. Besides which, while the capitalist method may not be perfect, the communist alternative of development (eg, the USSR's 'rapid industrialisation' and China's 'Great Leap Forward' are a much worse alternative). Therefore, realistically, the Western government's stance on sweatshops seems the best out of a list of limited and bad options. Now, as for overthrowing other regimes- that should only be done in exceptional circumstances- and when it is done, it is mostly for understandable reasons- such as the intervention in the Balkans. As for supporting undemocratic regimes, the fact of the matter is that it is not realistic nor even arguably effective to corner off and sanction every single undemocratic regime. It may even be counter-productive, leaving the countries stagnant and lacking in development. As for your remark that it is foreign impediments that prevent cultures from becoming close to the Enlightenment? I disagree strongly. If anything, exposure to foreign influences have helped bring progress. Which is why you'll find it is the major cities in the non-Free World that have been the most exposed to Western ideas that are more developed culturally to tolerate others different from themselves than their national counterparts that live in the countryside and have not received the same foreign influence. And as much as foreign intervention in places like the Middle East for example have made some kind of an impact- I doubt that is why they continue to be so homophobic, sexist, etc. I mean the West has intervened a lot in Latin America in recent history, and they have still come a long way in battling homophobia, sexism, authoritarianism and the rest.
|
