Wintreath Regional Community
The Frozen Village of Fourneshore - Chats and Discussions => Howling Wind Tavern - General Discussion => Topic started by: Evelynx on July 12, 2017, 08:29:58 PM
-
I'm not sure I'll ever not be an atheist, but I believe that religious ideals have been selected by something similar to darwinian selection, and that selection mechanism works by killing societies that have defective ideals the same way genetic diseases kill organisms who have defective genes.
As such, religions are worth examining in an effort to find the ideals that made them successful.
-
I'm not sure I'll ever not be an atheist, but I believe that religious ideals have been selected by something similar to darwinian selection, and that selection mechanism works by killing societies that have defective ideals the same way genetic diseases kill organisms who have defective genes.
As such, religions are worth examining in an effort to find the ideals that made them successful.
But they're not as successful as they once were...there's been a decline in religion, and especially organized religion.
I think why it's been successful is because people naturally want to believe that they're part of something bigger than themselves and they want to believe that they continue on forever in some form...death isn't the end of them. Religion is the easiest way to satisfy both drives. There's also indoctrination...ideas and beliefs instilled into people as children are less likely to ever be challenged.
It actually reminded me of my last signature on the forum for Jan's ML server forum, kinda ironic since you're the only person here who was there too:
From the documentary "Jesus Camp"
"The reason you go for kids is because whatever they learn by the time they're 7 or 8 or 9 years old is pretty well there for the rest of their lives...As I understood, your question to me was 'Do you feel it's right for the fundamentalists to indoctrinate their children with their own beliefs?' I guess fundamentally, yes I do, because every other religion is indoctrinating their kids. I would like to see more churches indoctrinating."
"You can tell a child anything ... you can make a child into a soldier that carries an AK47."
"You could call it brainwashing, but I am radical and passionate in teaching children about their responsibility as Christians, as God-fearing people, as Americans."
-
I do find that outlook interesting though, treating religions as memes (in the original sense of the term).
-
I do find that outlook interesting though, treating religions as memes (in the original sense of the term).
Exactly. More specifically, as collections of memes analogous to organisms. There's no simple reason why they were successful, I think.
Religion may be declining, but I think that the memes that religion created live on in non-religious people - or at least I hope so. For example the idea that each individual in some sense has the same value as each other individual is not intuitively obvious. It's a religious idea, plain and simple. In this sense, even non-religious people remain religious in that they enact religious ideals in their life.
-
I do find that outlook interesting though, treating religions as memes (in the original sense of the term).
Exactly. More specifically, as collections of memes analogous to organisms. There's no simple reason why they were successful, I think.
Religion may be declining, but I think that the memes that religion created live on in non-religious people - or at least I hope so. For example the idea that each individual in some sense has the same value as each other individual is not intuitively obvious. It's a religious idea, plain and simple. In this sense, even non-religious people remain religious in that they enact religious ideals in their life.
So in other words, secular humanism (though humanists often argue that such ideas could arise and exist without religion).
-
So in other words, secular humanism (though humanists often argue that such ideas could arise and exist without religion).
Maybe I guess, I would argue that the ideas arising without religion would be akin to multicellular life arising without unicellular life... ie, functionally impossible. I think that the religion that Atheists argue against today, which has many of its roots in fundamentalist or near fundamentalist sects of christianity, is very different from the religion that existed in the past.
It's only when everyone could read the words that were written down in scripture that they began to be taken literally, and since America is filled with descendants of these sects, American Atheists generally argue against literal interpretations of the bible. Like.. GRRR, The world is older than the bible says, GRRR, slavery is bad, GRRR humans arose through evolution by natural selection not adam and eve, and the GRRRs go on and on but they generally are against literal interpretations. It's fairly facile, I think.
-
So in other words, secular humanism (though humanists often argue that such ideas could arise and exist without religion).
Maybe I guess, I would argue that the ideas arising without religion would be akin to multicellular life arising without unicellular life... ie, functionally impossible. I think that the religion that Atheists argue against today, which has many of its roots in fundamentalist or near fundamentalist sects of christianity, is very different from the religion that existed in the past.
But why? From my view, positive aspects of religion such as morality do not need a religious foundation to exist. Continuing the gene/meme analogy, I'd think that it's more akin to convergent evolution; such philosophical views could develop independently from different sources, much as mulitcellular life evolved independently at least dozens of times, from a highly diverse set of organisms.
-
So in other words, secular humanism (though humanists often argue that such ideas could arise and exist without religion).
Maybe I guess, I would argue that the ideas arising without religion would be akin to multicellular life arising without unicellular life... ie, functionally impossible. I think that the religion that Atheists argue against today, which has many of its roots in fundamentalist or near fundamentalist sects of christianity, is very different from the religion that existed in the past.
But why? From my view, positive aspects of religion such as morality do not need a religious foundation to exist. Continuing the gene/meme analogy, I'd think that it's more akin to convergent evolution; such philosophical views could develop independently from different sources, much as mulitcellular life evolved independently at least dozens of times, from a highly diverse set of organisms.
The morality we take for granted in secular humanism is derived from religious values - if a different set of religious values, say Taoist/Daoist or Buddhist traditions, incorporated materialism the way that Christianity did during the enlightenment, I think we could expect the equivalent of secular humanism that arose from it to be different in important respects.. In more communal cultures, for example, I'd expect that the rights of the individual would be more likely to be denied in favor of the rights of family units.
What I mean is, the secular humanism we have in the west is descended from Christianity, it did not evolve in a vacuum. That's why the values of secular humanism are so similar to those of conventional Christian faiths. And I think Christianity has much to offer us yet..
-
Maybe we should preemptively move this to hall of great discussions.. it's actually something I'm interested in talking about in detail, just to develop my ideas about it better. It's a pretty new tack for me to be taking.
-
So in other words, secular humanism (though humanists often argue that such ideas could arise and exist without religion).
Maybe I guess, I would argue that the ideas arising without religion would be akin to multicellular life arising without unicellular life... ie, functionally impossible. I think that the religion that Atheists argue against today, which has many of its roots in fundamentalist or near fundamentalist sects of christianity, is very different from the religion that existed in the past.
But why? From my view, positive aspects of religion such as morality do not need a religious foundation to exist. Continuing the gene/meme analogy, I'd think that it's more akin to convergent evolution; such philosophical views could develop independently from different sources, much as mulitcellular life evolved independently at least dozens of times, from a highly diverse set of organisms.
The morality we take for granted in secular humanism is derived from religious values - if a different set of religious values, say Taoist/Daoist or Buddhist traditions, incorporated materialism the way that Christianity did during the enlightenment, I think we could expect the equivalent of secular humanism that arose from it to be different in important respects.. In more communal cultures, for example, I'd expect that the rights of the individual would be more likely to be denied in favor of the rights of family units.
What I mean is, the secular humanism we have in the west is descended from Christianity, it did not evolve in a vacuum. That's why the values of secular humanism are so similar to those of conventional Christian faiths. And I think Christianity has much to offer us yet..
Of course those ideas don't evolve in a vacuum; they are naturally influenced by everything before and around it. But the same is true for religions—they are also highly influenced by the cultural norms around them. Taking your example of more communal cultures, I'd argue the reverse: religions that evolve in those conditions are used to justify less individuality as morally correct.
But really, none of it evolves in a vacuum; it all evolves together, influencing and being influenced by each other. For instance, the emphasis on ancestor veneration/worship in traditional Chinese religion is clearly a byproduct of the culture's emphasis on filial piety. I believe that ideas of morality can evolve in the absence of religion, as other philosophies could develop in similar ways.
Maybe we should preemptively move this to hall of great discussions.. it's actually something I'm interested in talking about in detail, just to develop my ideas about it better. It's a pretty new tack for me to be taking.
@Sapphiron @Gerrick
-
Let me know if you'd like me to change the title of this topic. :)
-
But really, none of it evolves in a vacuum; it all evolves together, influencing and being influenced by each other. For instance, the emphasis on ancestor veneration/worship in traditional Chinese religion is clearly a byproduct of the culture's emphasis on filial piety. I believe that ideas of morality can evolve in the absence of religion, as other philosophies could develop in similar ways.
I don't really know the difference between religious values and non-religious values in this instance.. If you mean that morality could have theoretically happened without belief in a supreme being, maybe it could have, no way to know since it's never happened.
Anyway, this is a little bit besides the point I think. What I mean is that the values found in Christianity and other religions are like the DNA of human cultures, as they currently exist, and they appear to have worked very well for producing the kinds of societies that are stable and productive. Current attempts to do away with religion on a society-wide basis have been dramatically unsuccessful, so far, so the idea that I'm trying to combat is the one where we do away with religion entirely. I think that we still have a lot to learn as a society before we can take off our religious training wheels. Note again that I don't mean we have anything to learn from these new fundamentalist faiths, which I find to be philosophically flawed..
I don't really find much wrong with secular humanism, because I don't think that this is one of the aims of secular humanism. I'm sorry if I'm rambling seemingly without aim, I'm still trying to figure out my own head on these issues.
-
I do think tau has a point though. The east and the west have very different views on religion itself. While in the west our societies are based around religion, in the east its almost the other way around. Having done a lot of study into this one of the things that struck me about religions like Hinduism, Buddhism and Chinese Folk Religion is that they are all very personal. Of the major religions in the east only Buddhism and Sikhism have any sort of real holy text, though Sikhism itself is a very new religion in the grand scheme of things. (Hinduism's Mahabharata and the Vedic scrolls and the like are situational due to Hinduism's disparate nature. Calling Hinduism a religion is a misnomer honestly.) And even then the schools of Buddhism interpret things in vastly different ways. Unlike in the west where our morality is defined by our faith and our culture's traditional faith, in the east its almost the opposite, one is born into a religious tradition and may pick where in it they stand. The concepts we expect of religions in the west like holy texts, orthodoxy and heresy and a defined religious hierarchy either do not exist or have radically different status. Despite this disparate religious network, especially in India and China they are distinct societies. And now I feel like I'm rambling on so I'm just going to stop here xD
-
But really, none of it evolves in a vacuum; it all evolves together, influencing and being influenced by each other. For instance, the emphasis on ancestor veneration/worship in traditional Chinese religion is clearly a byproduct of the culture's emphasis on filial piety. I believe that ideas of morality can evolve in the absence of religion, as other philosophies could develop in similar ways.
I don't really know the difference between religious values and non-religious values in this instance.. If you mean that morality could have theoretically happened without belief in a supreme being, maybe it could have, no way to know since it's never happened.
Anyway, this is a little bit besides the point I think. What I mean is that the values found in Christianity and other religions are like the DNA of human cultures, as they currently exist, and they appear to have worked very well for producing the kinds of societies that are stable and productive. Current attempts to do away with religion on a society-wide basis have been dramatically unsuccessful, so far, so the idea that I'm trying to combat is the one where we do away with religion entirely. I think that we still have a lot to learn as a society before we can take off our religious training wheels. Note again that I don't mean we have anything to learn from these new fundamentalist faiths, which I find to be philosophically flawed..
I don't really find much wrong with secular humanism, because I don't think that this is one of the aims of secular humanism. I'm sorry if I'm rambling seemingly without aim, I'm still trying to figure out my own head on these issues.
I basically agree on most points here. My main concern was just with this statement:So in other words, secular humanism (though humanists often argue that such ideas could arise and exist without religion).
Maybe I guess, I would argue that the ideas arising without religion would be akin to multicellular life arising without unicellular life... ie, functionally impossible.
Maybe you intended that analogy to mean something different from what I thought it meant, but that was about it.
I'd argue that religion merits as much examination as any similarly popular philosophical movements (chief among them being Confucianism). And on a broader scale, all literature has something to teach about human nature, and enduring religious tenets and texts are definitely very high on that list.
-
I think I'll hold onto the statement that you disagree with.. I don't think that a secular humanist ideology could have arisen without support from a religious institution. But of course we can't prove that one way or the other, and it's not such a big disagreement anyway... so..
Anyway, I think we pretty much agree. I was somewhat hoping for some more disagreement to go on so I could discuss it a bit further.
-
I do think tau has a point though. The east and the west have very different views on religion itself. While in the west our societies are based around religion, in the east its almost the other way around. Having done a lot of study into this one of the things that struck me about religions like Hinduism, Buddhism and Chinese Folk Religion is that they are all very personal. Of the major religions in the east only Buddhism and Sikhism have any sort of real holy text, though Sikhism itself is a very new religion in the grand scheme of things. (Hinduism's Mahabharata and the Vedic scrolls and the like are situational due to Hinduism's disparate nature. Calling Hinduism a religion is a misnomer honestly.) And even then the schools of Buddhism interpret things in vastly different ways. Unlike in the west where our morality is defined by our faith and our culture's traditional faith, in the east its almost the opposite, one is born into a religious tradition and may pick where in it they stand. The concepts we expect of religions in the west like holy texts, orthodoxy and heresy and a defined religious hierarchy either do not exist or have radically different status. Despite this disparate religious network, especially in India and China they are distinct societies. And now I feel like I'm rambling on so I'm just going to stop here xD
But if I had to choose a set of beliefs that have found more success, I'd choose the western belief systems.. I think the East, broadly speaking, is struggling to match the West in a lot of ways. Maybe something about our respective belief systems had something to do with that? I must admit I know a lot less about eastern religions, though I do know that both taoism/daoism and confucianism have something like holy texts.
-
I do think tau has a point though. The east and the west have very different views on religion itself. While in the west our societies are based around religion, in the east its almost the other way around. Having done a lot of study into this one of the things that struck me about religions like Hinduism, Buddhism and Chinese Folk Religion is that they are all very personal. Of the major religions in the east only Buddhism and Sikhism have any sort of real holy text, though Sikhism itself is a very new religion in the grand scheme of things. (Hinduism's Mahabharata and the Vedic scrolls and the like are situational due to Hinduism's disparate nature. Calling Hinduism a religion is a misnomer honestly.) And even then the schools of Buddhism interpret things in vastly different ways. Unlike in the west where our morality is defined by our faith and our culture's traditional faith, in the east its almost the opposite, one is born into a religious tradition and may pick where in it they stand. The concepts we expect of religions in the west like holy texts, orthodoxy and heresy and a defined religious hierarchy either do not exist or have radically different status. Despite this disparate religious network, especially in India and China they are distinct societies. And now I feel like I'm rambling on so I'm just going to stop here xD
But if I had to choose a set of beliefs that have found more success, I'd choose the western belief systems.. I think the East, broadly speaking, is struggling to match the West in a lot of ways. Maybe something about our respective belief systems had something to do with that? I must admit I know a lot less about eastern religions, though I do know that both taoism/daoism and confucianism have something like holy texts.
I'd consider books like The Analects and the Daodejing to be more part of a philosophical canon than to be holy texts. After all, those two are simply collections of wise sayings about life. In that respect I'd consider them more similar to Sunzi's the Art of War than to, say, the Holy Bible.
The Western belief systems have become more successful largely because the West itself has become far more dominant. Economic circumstances led to a far more powerful Europe than Asia in the modern era, and cultural imperialism (for the lack of a better term, since its use here is not particularly intended to be negative) did the rest.
-
I think the bible has more philosophical content in it that people generally give it credit for.. Though there's a lot of what I would term historical data of dubious accuracy in there as well. Maybe it's the history book part of it that makes it a holy book? I tend to think holy just means immensely important to a group of people that follow a religion. Anyway, I don't know why we would argue about whether or not particular religions have holy books exactly..
In regards to what caused the west to be successful, we have a chicken or the egg problem.. did the West become more dominant because of their belief systems, or did their belief systems become more dominant because they became more dominant? I'm inclined to believe the former because belief systems have an extraordinary power to shape individual behavior, and individual behavior is what shapes a society. Economic forces such as geography and available resources certainly play a role, but I can't see how the west had an advantage over the east in those regards.
-
I think the bible has more philosophical content in it that people generally give it credit for.. Though there's a lot of what I would term historical data of dubious accuracy in there as well. Maybe it's the history book part of it that makes it a holy book? I tend to think holy just means immensely important to a group of people that follow a religion. Anyway, I don't know why we would argue about whether or not particular religions have holy books exactly..
I brought that up partially because both Confucianism and Daoism are often not considered religions, but rather philosophical traditions or schools of thought.
In regards to what caused the west to be successful, we have a chicken or the egg problem.. did the West become more dominant because of their belief systems, or did their belief systems become more dominant because they became more dominant? I'm inclined to believe the former because belief systems have an extraordinary power to shape individual behavior, and individual behavior is what shapes a society. Economic forces such as geography and available resources certainly play a role, but I can't see how the west had an advantage over the east in those regards.
I was completely oversimplifying, but this AskHistorians post (https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1pzf28/why_did_european_powers_in_particular_start/) provides a fairly good overview of historians' main focuses on why the West has dominated the modern era. Basically, it includes Asian economies stagnating (the layman's use of the term, not the economic one) while changes in Europe, particularly the discovery and exploitation of the New World, allowed it to advance and grow until industrialization caused it to dominate.
The general argument, therefore, as to why Europe was able to gain an unassailable lead, regardless of approach, shows some remarkably consistent features:
1. The fall of the East and the foundations of the rise of the West
2. The New World and the creation of early-modern mercantile empires which created proto-capitalist systems throughout the world, including in Europe and Asia.
3. The Industrial Revolution and the shift from organic economies to inorgancic ones, saw characteristics of the pre-industrial world accelerated and saw Europe rise to the fore much more quickly than Asia.
TL/DR Europe was in the right place, at the right time, with the right circumstantial history, and the right systems in place that when the Industrial Revolution happened, its hegemony was cemented.
Edit: spelling/grammar
-
I find it hard to believe that there isn't room for the behavior of the individuals in these societies in these explanations. They seem too broad to even begin to look at the possibility. They may be true explanations (it's hard to be sure when there is no way to test your hypotheses), but only when you're looking from the top down, not the bottom up. For example, Historians see that Europeans are colonizing the Americas in the 1700s and 1800s, colonizing huge swathes of land all over the world and turning the resources in those lands towards hegemonic world domination. They also see that earlier on in the east (1400s), China had destroyed their navy, never to fully recover. Historians see that these factors contributed to the fall of the east and the rise of the west, and that's likely true... but why did those things happen? If you keep looking down, it has to be the individual choices of individual people that made many of those things happen.. and this is the level at which personal beliefs operate.
-
I find it hard to believe that there isn't room for the behavior of the individuals in these societies in these explanations. They seem too broad to even begin to look at the possibility. They may be true explanations (it's hard to be sure when there is no way to test your hypotheses), but only when you're looking from the top down, not the bottom up. For example, Historians see that Europeans are colonizing the Americas in the 1700s and 1800s, colonizing huge swathes of land all over the world and turning the resources in those lands towards hegemonic world domination. They also see that earlier on in the east (1400s), China had destroyed their navy, never to fully recover. Historians see that these factors contributed to the fall of the east and the rise of the west, and that's likely true... but why did those things happen? If you keep looking down, it has to be the individual choices of individual people that made many of those things happen.. and this is the level at which personal beliefs operate.
Of course, individual actions, added together, from the course of human events. But when historians look at these circumstances, they're seeing many separate things occurring at just the right time, which add together to help put the East and West in positions at which they are today. Using your example, there are plenty of good reasons why China became isolationist under the Ming (https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4g61y0/why_didnt_china_join_the_rush_to_set_up_colonies/); it simply made sense given the geopolitical and economic circumstances. To propose that Western religious systems played a significant role in Europe's successes, and concluding from that unsubstantiated claim that this makes Western beliefs inherently superior, is Eurocentric to say the least.
-
Of course, individual actions, added together, from the course of human events. But when historians look at these circumstances, they're seeing many separate things occurring at just the right time, which add together to help put the East and West in positions at which they are today. Using your example, there are plenty of good reasons why China became isolationist under the Ming (https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4g61y0/why_didnt_china_join_the_rush_to_set_up_colonies/); it simply made sense given the geopolitical and economic circumstances. To propose that Western religious systems played a significant role in Europe's successes, and concluding from that unsubstantiated claim that this makes Western beliefs inherently superior, is Eurocentric to say the least.
Would you argue that the belief systems of a populace don't have an effect on how successful they are?
-
Of course, individual actions, added together, from the course of human events. But when historians look at these circumstances, they're seeing many separate things occurring at just the right time, which add together to help put the East and West in positions at which they are today. Using your example, there are plenty of good reasons why China became isolationist under the Ming (https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4g61y0/why_didnt_china_join_the_rush_to_set_up_colonies/); it simply made sense given the geopolitical and economic circumstances. To propose that Western religious systems played a significant role in Europe's successes, and concluding from that unsubstantiated claim that this makes Western beliefs inherently superior, is Eurocentric to say the least.
Would you argue that the belief systems of a populace don't have an effect on how successful they are?
It might, but in this case I see no evidence suggesting a significant effect either way, particularly as historians' consensus generally points to other causes. After all, it's even possible that Eastern cultures were "better" or put them at an advantage, but the circumstances meant that Europe succeeded anyway. And it's not like these successes have been constant; mere centuries prior, Mongol conquests had brought on an era of stability and prosperity in an empire stretching from Central Europe to China, while Christendom continued to struggle as a regional power.
However, not only are you assuming that European religions contributed to Western domination, but you're also drawing from that assumption that this makes European belief systems somehow better, an argument that's treading dangerously close to those espoused by Christian supremacists.
-
It might, but in this case I see no evidence suggesting a significant effect either way, particularly as historians' consensus generally points to other causes. After all, it's even possible that Eastern cultures were "better" or put them at an advantage, but the circumstances meant that Europe succeeded anyway. And it's not like these successes have been constant; mere centuries prior, Mongol conquests had brought on an era of stability and prosperity in an empire stretching from Central Europe to China, while Christendom continued to struggle as a regional power.
However, not only are you assuming that European religions contributed to Western domination, but you're also drawing from that assumption that this makes European belief systems somehow better, an argument that's treading dangerously close to those espoused by Christian supremacists.
If I implied that I thought western belief systems were better than eastern ones, then I apologize. After all, that game hasn't even played out yet - both the eastern and western belief systems are still very much intact and can be expected to clash again sometime in the future. And I don't see that the historians you've quoted so far have said that other causes caused the success of the west yet, as I've said before, their methods don't have nearly the resolution required to answer the question - the last you posted said that Mercantilism was a useful tool for the West, but why did the West have that system? As for the Mongols, their empire burned so fiercely for awhile and then collapsed fairly quickly.. I think that longevity is an important factor to consider (though who even knows how long Western civilization will last!).
I'm not saying I know the answer to these questions, but in my own personal life I feel like it's important to at least take a stab at them, and they will never be answered by historians looking at the grand scheme of things. It's useful, but it tells you nothing about how to be successful in your own life. Besides, I'm within western civilization, I was born here, which means I need to learn how best to survive within that civilization, and that means I need to examine what those beliefs are and how they contribute to individual success.
If that means my ideas need to flirt with the ideas of Christian Supremicists and Eurocentrists, mleh? I don't think we should block ourselves off because of labels, we should block ourselves off when we hurt ourselves. I also think that we should block ourselves off when we hurt others, but that's not axiomatic.
-
If I implied that I thought western belief systems were better than eastern ones, then I apologize. After all, that game hasn't even played out yet - both the eastern and western belief systems are still very much intact and can be expected to clash again sometime in the future. And I don't see that the historians you've quoted so far have said that other causes caused the success of the west yet, as I've said before, their methods don't have nearly the resolution required to answer the question - the last you posted said that Mercantilism was a useful tool for the West, but why did the West have that system? As for the Mongols, their empire burned so fiercely for awhile and then collapsed fairly quickly.. I think that longevity is an important factor to consider (though who even knows how long Western civilization will last!).
I'm not saying I know the answer to these questions, but in my own personal life I feel like it's important to at least take a stab at them, and they will never be answered by historians looking at the grand scheme of things. It's useful, but it tells you nothing about how to be successful in your own life. Besides, I'm within western civilization, I was born here, which means I need to learn how best to survive within that civilization, and that means I need to examine what those beliefs are and how they contribute to individual success.
If that means my ideas need to flirt with the ideas of Christian Supremicists and Eurocentrists, mleh? I don't think we should block ourselves off because of labels, we should block ourselves off when we hurt ourselves. I also think that we should block ourselves off when we hurt others, but that's not axiomatic.
Just touching on that "alternative explanation" point (and I am not sure if the point has already been brought up), but the main cause for Western successes (that I'm aware of) were that the Western civilizations constantly competed with one another. China and the Ottoman Empire were, well, fairly solid and united empires. The "West" on the other hand were a fractured mess of different kingdoms and the like that wanted to be better than all their peers. The French versus The Brits versus The Dutch, and so on. So while sailing ships that could have expanded across the globe were first made in China, the Western countries were first to go "we're gonna take over these other lands so we have a leg up on everyone else." It's similar to how the Cold War resulted in the moon landing -- competition. They had the drive to do better than all of their really, really close by neighbours.
Then again I'm going off of memory here so I could be mistaken, and it's almost certainly not the full picture.
-
If I implied that I thought western belief systems were better than eastern ones, then I apologize. After all, that game hasn't even played out yet - both the eastern and western belief systems are still very much intact and can be expected to clash again sometime in the future.
Asia is heavily influenced by Western culture nowadays though. And even if one side emerges victorious over the other, I don't think we could attribute it to their belief systems mostly. The majority of China, for instance, is irreligious, and it's quite common for people to only turn to religious-type practices (mostly traditional/folk religion and Buddhism) for things like funeral rites, for the sake of tradition.
And I don't see that the historians you've quoted so far have said that other causes caused the success of the west yet, as I've said before, their methods don't have nearly the resolution required to answer the question - the last you posted said that Mercantilism was a useful tool for the West, but why did the West have that system?
Except that post does explain it... Mercantilism developed in the Middle Ages because all the tiny little kingdoms lacked resources and consequently competed in trade wars. On the other hand, China was a large empire, with plenty of resources, and natural geographical borders on all sides. They also had plenty of room to expand in a western frontier, so there was no need to establish colonies overseas. Furthermore, a century of foreign rule led to xenophobia and distrust of foreigners.
Ninja edit: looks like Elbbsas beat me to this part.
As for the Mongols, their empire burned so fiercely for awhile and then collapsed fairly quickly.. I think that longevity is an important factor to consider (though who even knows how long Western civilization will last!).
I'm not too sure that's accurate. The Pax Mongolica (http://Pax Mongolica) lasted for about one and a half centuries before a gradual decline and collapse, in large part due to the Black Death ending trade and making administration over long distances difficult.
I'm not saying I know the answer to these questions, but in my own personal life I feel like it's important to at least take a stab at them, and they will never be answered by historians looking at the grand scheme of things. It's useful, but it tells you nothing about how to be successful in your own life. Besides, I'm within western civilization, I was born here, which means I need to learn how best to survive within that civilization, and that means I need to examine what those beliefs are and how they contribute to individual success.
Agreed. As an Asian American in a heavily immigrant community, my needs are of course somewhat different.
If that means my ideas need to flirt with the ideas of Christian Supremicists and Eurocentrists, mleh? I don't think we should block ourselves off because of labels, we should block ourselves off when we hurt ourselves. I also think that we should block ourselves off when we hurt others, but that's not axiomatic.
My issue is that you were drawing arguably racist/supremacist conclusions from an assumption that likely isn't even true. Much as with the "there are only two genders" debate, while I believe most people on all sides to be well-intentioned, and while I'd certainly switch sides if the evidence were there, I'd vastly prefer our null hypothesis to be the one that doesn't unintentionally prejudice against certain groups.
-
Asia is heavily influenced by Western culture nowadays though. And even if one side emerges victorious over the other, I don't think we could attribute it to their belief systems mostly. The majority of China, for instance, is irreligious, and it's quite common for people to only turn to religious-type practices (mostly traditional/folk religion and Buddhism) for things like funeral rites, for the sake of tradition.
Edited this one in here.
I'm not saying we can attribute it to belief systems mostly, just that some things can be attributed to belief systems. It's not terribly surprising that China is irreligious - they recently implemented Communism and that ideology in particular is quite anti-religious. I don't think, however, that the ideas that were in their religious traditions have died out just because they stopped identifying with those religions, though those ideas have likely eroded, they likely remain effectual. I can't say for sure, of course, but I do know that among American atheists at least, myself included, generally Christian behaviors prevail.
Except that post does explain it... Mercantilism developed in the Middle Ages because all the tiny little kingdoms lacked resources and consequently competed in trade wars. On the other hand, China was a large empire, with plenty of resources, and natural geographical borders on all sides. They also had plenty of room to expand in a western frontier, so there was no need to establish colonies overseas. Furthermore, a century of foreign rule led to xenophobia and distrust of foreigners.
Ninja edit: looks like Elbbsas beat me to this part.
That still doesn't explain it, you again have titanic forces composed of hundreds of thousands of people colliding in complicated ways.. It still doesn't tell you much about how much or how little individual behavior contributed to what was happening.
I'm not too sure that's accurate. The Pax Mongolica (http://Pax Mongolica) lasted for about one and a half centuries before a gradual decline and collapse, in large part due to the Black Death ending trade and making administration over long distances difficult.
It's true that the Mongols were very successful, and there's a lot to be said for it. I would wonder how the individual behavior and beliefs of people in the Mongol civilization impacted their successes. Certainly their tolerance for other belief systems contributed to their success, and I think that's a useful gem for us to admire in today's day and age where it is perhaps even more important.
My issue is that you were drawing arguably racist/supremacist conclusions from an assumption that likely isn't even true. Much as with the "there are only two genders" debate, while I believe most people on all sides to be well-intentioned, and while I'd certainly switch sides if the evidence were there, I'd vastly prefer our null hypothesis to be the one that doesn't unintentionally prejudice against certain groups.
I agree, as I pointed out before I don't think that Eastern civilization is worse or better than Western, they both remain, after all, extant, so I think it's unfair to say I was drawing that conclusion. Especially since I haven't yet drawn any conclusions at all. East Asian culture (particularly Chinese culture) is remarkably cohesive and is by a large margin the oldest civilization in existence, and deserves a lot of respect for that, and I have no doubt that the West has a lot to learn from their belief systems.
What I'm trying to figure out a way to figure out what individual behavior should be in order to produce successful societies, so I can be a productive cog in that machine, and, for me, that machine is Western Civilization (though globalization is making this claim more and more false even on its own). In order to do that, I want to try to figure out, from the perspective of individual choices, what has made Western Civilization successful. I don't think that there's nothing good about the belief systems in the West, and I want to find out what the good is. Christianity is very influential in this area, so I think there's a lot of good to be found there.
-
Just touching on that "alternative explanation" point (and I am not sure if the point has already been brought up), but the main cause for Western successes (that I'm aware of) were that the Western civilizations constantly competed with one another. China and the Ottoman Empire were, well, fairly solid and united empires. The "West" on the other hand were a fractured mess of different kingdoms and the like that wanted to be better than all their peers. The French versus The Brits versus The Dutch, and so on. So while sailing ships that could have expanded across the globe were first made in China, the Western countries were first to go "we're gonna take over these other lands so we have a leg up on everyone else." It's similar to how the Cold War resulted in the moon landing -- competition. They had the drive to do better than all of their really, really close by neighbours.
Then again I'm going off of memory here so I could be mistaken, and it's almost certainly not the full picture.
Nothing wrong with some healthy competition where for the most part people don't kill each other! It's another thing most civilizations had to get right in order to remain cohesive for any length of time. I'd say both eastern and western civilizations figured this one out in different but effective ways.
-
I think that at this point we've pretty much reached a consensus, once again. :D
Except for maybe this one bit:
That still doesn't explain it, you again have titanic forces composed of hundreds of thousands of people colliding in complicated ways.. It still doesn't tell you much about how much or how little individual behavior contributed to what was happening.
But because our current historical analysis doesn't tell us the effect of complex religions, cultures, memes, etc., I'd consider it wrong to take it either way. As I said earlier:
After all, it's even possible that Eastern cultures were "better" or put them at an advantage, but the circumstances meant that Europe succeeded anyway.
While there may be an effect, the complexities of individual peoples and actions as a result of these ideas means that realistically there's no way to tell the consequences. As such, it makes far more sense not to draw conclusions (for the lack of a better term) about these belief systems from their parent cultures' successes.
-
I think that at this point we've pretty much reached a consensus, once again. :D
Except for maybe this one bit:
That still doesn't explain it, you again have titanic forces composed of hundreds of thousands of people colliding in complicated ways.. It still doesn't tell you much about how much or how little individual behavior contributed to what was happening.
But because our current historical analysis doesn't tell us the effect of complex religions, cultures, memes, etc., I'd consider it wrong to take it either way. As I said earlier:
After all, it's even possible that Eastern cultures were "better" or put them at an advantage, but the circumstances meant that Europe succeeded anyway.
While there may be an effect, the complexities of individual peoples and actions as a result of these ideas means that realistically there's no way to tell the consequences. As such, it makes far more sense not to draw conclusions (for the lack of a better term) about these belief systems from their parent cultures' successes.
I think it's possible to try to look at it the other way - instead of the top down historical perspective, look at it from a bottom-up perspective.. You'd have to look at the interactions between 2 people, then small groups of people, then see how groups of people interact.. etc. I think it's possible, but it's not the way that historians are looking at it. It would be more like psychology.. Maybe that's why Asimov called it psychohistory..
-
Just FYI, since you've used the terms twice already, bottom-up and top-down history are terms already commonly used in historiography (https://www.amazon.com/Doing-History-Bottom-P-Rebuilding/dp/1608463885), with bottom-up history being a equivalent for social history or people's history (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_history).
Historians do look at interactions between individuals, though; they study them to understand the social climate of the time, analyze cultural movements, see the general thoughts and opinions of the populace, etc. But unless there's an actual connection to be made, they can't make statements about how these beliefs shaped the success of the overall societies. And because such evidence is always open to interpretation, you end up with people drawing conclusions to support their own needs, such as Max Weber using the Protestant work ethic as a more subtle way to paint Catholics as lazy. (Though sociologists did eventually find that his idea did have basis in fact, they've also found that his hypothesis that it led to capitalism to be incredibly wrong.)
Not sure why you're bringing up pschohistory here... if anything, that's the top-down approach, treating people in society like molecules in the Kinetic Theory of Gases (stealing that analogy directly from Asimov himself). And in any case, it's arguable that psychohistory is among the more unrealistic things in Foundation; even Hari Seldon probably didn't expect it to work, given how he ended up creating a Second Foundation of psychics.
-
Just FYI, since you've used the terms twice already, bottom-up and top-down history are terms already commonly used in historiography (https://www.amazon.com/Doing-History-Bottom-P-Rebuilding/dp/1608463885), with bottom-up history being a equivalent for social history or people's history (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_history).
Historians do look at interactions between individuals, though; they study them to understand the social climate of the time, analyze cultural movements, see the general thoughts and opinions of the populace, etc. But unless there's an actual connection to be made, they can't make statements about how these beliefs shaped the success of the overall societies. And because such evidence is always open to interpretation, you end up with people drawing conclusions to support their own needs, such as Max Weber using the Protestant work ethic as a more subtle way to paint Catholics as lazy. (Though sociologists did eventually find that his idea did have basis in fact, they've also found that his hypothesis that it led to capitalism to be incredibly wrong.)
Not sure why you're bringing up pschohistory here... if anything, that's the top-down approach, treating people in society like molecules in the Kinetic Theory of Gases (stealing that analogy directly from Asimov himself). And in any case, it's arguable that psychohistory is among the more unrealistic things in Foundation; even Hari Seldon probably didn't expect it to work, given how he ended up creating a Second Foundation of psychics.
"A people's history, or history from below,[1] is a type of historical narrative which attempts to account for historical events from the perspective of common people rather than leaders. There is an emphasis on disenfranchised, the oppressed, the poor, the nonconformists, and otherwise marginal groups. The authors are typically on the left and have a Marxist model in mind, as in the approach of the History Workshop movement in Britain in the 1960s"
That's not anything like what I'm talking about, heh. Particularly the Marxist bit. Leaders have a major role to play in history, this looks like revisionism to me. Also, none of the theories you've quotes so far on East vs. Western belief systems have used this approach or any approach like it, so these works don't have much relevance. Though, honestly, I'd like the conversation to move on away from East vs. West.
My mention of psychohistory was just an aside because I noticed a weird thing, not because I thought it had any bearing on the conversation.
-
"A people's history, or history from below,[1] is a type of historical narrative which attempts to account for historical events from the perspective of common people rather than leaders. There is an emphasis on disenfranchised, the oppressed, the poor, the nonconformists, and otherwise marginal groups. The authors are typically on the left and have a Marxist model in mind, as in the approach of the History Workshop movement in Britain in the 1960s"
That's not anything like what I'm talking about, heh. Particularly the Marxist bit. Leaders have a major role to play in history, this looks like revisionism to me. Also, none of the theories you've quotes so far on East vs. Western belief systems have used this approach or any approach like it, so these works don't have much relevance.
Yep, I pointed it out so that you don't cause confusion in the future by accidentally associating your ideas with a completely unrelated but already existing term.
Though, honestly, I'd like the conversation to move on away from East vs. West.
That was the only thing we were discussing, and as you might notice we're the only two posting on this thread, so it's more that the conversation will be ending for now than moving on.
-
Yep, I pointed it out so that you don't cause confusion in the future by accidentally associating your ideas with a completely unrelated but already existing term.
Fair enough.
That was the only thing we were discussing, and as you might notice we're the only two posting on this thread, so it's more that the conversation will be ending for now than moving on.
Makes sense to me. That was where the conversation went, but it's not really the idea I want to explore.. Anyway, yeah we can call it quits for now.