Gyroscopic Investing

What does "Western Civilization" mean to you? What are its attributes, both positive and negative? What distinguishes it from other civilizations?

It's a nonsense term.  The world is a sphere.

this should cover everything you need to know and then some..
  i give it a very high recommendation..
The Western Tradition by Eugen Weber: 52 Video Lectures  http://www.learner.org/resources/series58.html OR
http://www.openculture.com/2007/12/the_ ... video.html

Pointedstick wrote: What does "Western Civilization" mean to you? What are its attributes, both positive and negative? What distinguishes it from other civilizations?

"Western" civilization (a contraction of west and nation  ) is still in existence as opposed, for example, to the Aztec, Inca, and Iroquois civilizations.  My definition of Western Civilization would be that part of the world originating with the continent of Europe and subsequent areas heavily populated by largely Christian Europeans after they wiped out the indigenous peoples.  It is a vague, time dependent term.

... M

It makes me think about societies where the rules are written down based upon what the group agreed to when everyone was calm, as opposed to the rules being made by a mercurial Big Man based upon his mood on a given day.

If you ask how this distinction fits into a theocratic government, just pretend that God is the Big Man.

(I know that Mountaineer is going to say "But God IS the Big Man!!!")

My own impression is that Western Civilization is the meta-cultural umbrella of societies defined by the historical effects of combining Christianity and the Enlightenment, producing a unique blend of social cohesion, work ethic, tolerance, scientific acumen, and appreciation for education and intelligence. I also see that this is breaking down due to the failure and continued abandonment of the Christianity element, which acted as a conservative counterbalance to the liberalism of the Enlightenment element. As a result, Western Civilization is becoming far more liberal, with all the benefits and drawbacks that entails. It is morphing into something it has never been before, and nobody knows quite what that is or if it will work. Predictable, liberals are happy while conservatives are upset. Given that conservatism is a massively powerful force, both culturally and individually, the more conservatism is abandoned, the more risk of schism and separation appears, which would be bad news for conservatism, because I believe that historically a barometer for the success of a culture has been how much liberalism it had. We will see if there is an upper bound or not…

dragoncar wrote: It's a nonsense term.  The world is a sphere.

Debatable
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/cms/

Also technically it's an oblate spheroid; http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... not-round/

When asked what he thought of Western Civilization, Ghandi said he thought it would be a good idea.

(Might be a made up quote, however).

Desert wrote: I think it's distinguished primarily by Christianity.  I'm not saying that to troll or start another argument over religion, but I can't think of another attribute that even comes close to defining Western Civilization.  Relative to the rest of the world, Western Civilization enjoys less corruption, better-defined rule of law, a history of great education, etc.

I've heard that argument and once bought it myself but I don't agree with it any more. I'm going to go with the liberalism idea that somebody else proposed. If the early Christian settlers in the new world had had their way I'm not even so sure we'd have the kind of freedom we have today, religious or otherwise. I attribute that to the liberalism of Jefferson and Madison, not to the Christians. 

Globally, I think liberalism is openness to change and conservatism is resistance to it. Seen this way, Communism was actually very conservative: they basically tried to freeze time to create or preserve an agrarian or light industrial way of life. It didn't work, and the more liberal western societies invented computers and the internet and advanced in countless positive ways. But you can't be completely open to change or else you have no cultural anchors, you have no culture at all, in fact, no society. Conservatism is the impulse that creates society in the first place and keeps it safe when it's vulnerable, and liberalism is the impulse that makes it strong and healthy when the danger is low. Western Civilization had a really great balance of these things for a long time, but I see that coming to an end.

If you want a VERY politically incorrect answer to this question, you can read this column by Fred Reed.

http://www.unz.com/freed/are-white-men-gods-ii/

Desert wrote: I see communism as very much a progressive, liberal movement.  It was a complete redefinition of society and economics.  It aimed to fix the problems inherent in capitalism.  In fact, I see it as the very epitome of liberalism, if liberalism = openness to change.  The changes were radical and affected every area of life.  And not coincidentally, communism viewed Religion as something that needed to be eradicated in order for its promise to be realized.

Notice how that's the way they always started, but as soon as the revolution was successful, every communist country morphed into an iron-fisted dictatorship dedicated to preserving the gains of the revolution and preventing any deviation from the prescribed course. Communism was not about being open to change; it was wanting to implement a very narrow and specific set of priorities and then never changing anything ever. Western liberal democracies are constantly and organically changing, by contrast: technologically, culturally, socially, etc.

Desert wrote: I see your point, and I'm generally not a big "God & Country" person.  However, when I'm thinking of Western culture, I'm thinking of the roots that came well before the colonies.

No doubt Christianity has had a very large impact on what we are thinking of as "Western Culture" then. I think sometimes it has helped and sometimes it has hindered.

(Edit: "hindered" is far too mild a word based on my reading of history).

MediumTex wrote: It makes me think about societies where the rules are written down based upon what the group agreed to when everyone was calm, as opposed to the rules being made by a mercurial Big Man based upon his mood on a given day.

If you ask how this distinction fits into a theocratic government, just pretend that God is the Big Man.

(I know that Mountaineer is going to say "But God IS the Big Man!!!")

No, Jesus IS the Big Man!    Fully God and fully man.  Come on now MT, you know that. 

Secondly, I am VERY much for separation of church and state.  I don't want no %$^&*^% theocratic government.  That would be horrible in my opinion.  I just wish the statists would agree with me.  Secularism is our new state religion.  Think about it.

... M

Pointedstick wrote: What does "Western Civilization" mean to you? What are its attributes, both positive and negative? What distinguishes it from other civilizations?

Positives: Enlightenment.  Rationality.  Reason.  Science.  Empathy.  Democracy.  Technology.  Dynanism.

Negatives: Imperialism.  Centralization.  Institutionalization.  Narcissism.  Disintegration of Rule of Law.  Statism.

1NV35T0R (Greg) wrote:

dragoncar wrote: It's a nonsense term.  The world is a sphere.

Debatable
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/cms/

Also technically it's an oblate spheroid; http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... not-round/

Hah I loved that episode. A bueaucractic jamboree!