Can someone help me define Western Civilization?
- Thread starter Reginleif
- Start date
Defining civilization based on religion?
It worked for Huntington and he sold millions of books!
SKILORD
Insurgent
That does not make Huntington's premise any less stupid.
I hate that book.
I hate that book.
Did I say it isn't?
SKILORD
Insurgent
I know. Just sayin,
Cashie
King
Defining civilization based on religion?
I hate to say it, but the Bible is the instruction book for Western Civilisation. Doesn't mean everyone reads it, though.
SKILORD
Insurgent
Roman legal systems did not derive from the Hebrew ones.
This is incorrect.
Pokurcz
Emperor
The first half is decent
But it Is full of genocide and immorality, the second half is just full of fabrications.
Pokurcz
Emperor
Disregarding the truthfulness of your statement, I'll take genocide and immorality over lies any day of the week
The lies in the old testament are just not as obvious, but of corse I am grosly oversimplyfying, it is not as if the new testament is free of immorality.
But with the genocide and selfgratifying lies the Bible is a perfect source for furthering ones understanding of Western culture.
Pokurcz
Emperor
Indoctrination, the power of it is truely awesome. If you pound something early enough in to the mind of people it becomes an axiom that needs not to be proven and can not be falcified.
I have had first hand experience of it, in my own upbringing and see it now in familymembers left in "the old country", but it is prevailent everywhere.
One only needs to cast an eye on rightwing and left wing ideologists, and their inability to even recognise the humanity of their respective opponents. No wonder so many people have dificulties to find common ground.
aronnax
Let your spirit be free
Why?
Ahh. I didn't see this.
Well, my logic is that, centuries ago even before the East-West Schism, one half of Europe and the other half of Europe started to religiously, politically and culturally differentiate heavily from one another. I don't need to ramble on it, you should know them too, issues such as the Pope's authority on Christianity to the Patriarch in Constantinople, differences in text regarding theology and spirituality, the Holy Roman Emperor versus the Roman Emperor etc.
Okay, I'm going to put that aside for a while but I will come back to it in a little bit.
Now, in the succeeding centuries of Europe after the fall of Rome, possibly a very defining thing about what made Europe, was being Christian, so basically, up till the mid-10th Century, Europe didn't go past Central Poland, with the fall of North Africa to the Arabs, Europe and Christianity's spread was modern day France+Italy+Germany+Denmark+Balkans+Anatolia and at that time, Rome and Constantinople feuded over control of the churches in Europe and when the East-West Schism finally cemented their divorce Europe officially split along two lines, What was Greek Byzantine Empire and the places they influenced (Ukraine Russia) and the Remnants of the Western Roman Empire and the places they influenced(Poland, Spain, Ireland, Scandinavia). Europe, split into two separate halves.
Afterward, the Byzantine Empire became the "it" country to be despised by the Latins due to the Schism and all the things mentioned earlier. Despite the efforts of various Popes to rally with their Orthodox brothers against Islam, neither the Byzantine Emperor or the Kings of Latin Europe bothered to. The Emperor saw cooperation with Latin Europe only so far as to regain territories which the Crusaders stopped returning when they were far enough from Constantinople, the Fourth Crusade demonstrated to be the biggest blow to Latin-Byzantine Relations, deepening the gap between the two halves of Europe.
Now trust me one this when I say I read it even though I cannot find the source from where it was from, but just... well.. take my word.
When Constantinople fell to the Turks, while some Monarchs lament the fall of Constantinople to Islam, I am quite sure, that one King, I think it was of England or Hungary stated that Constantinople fell because of they practised Orthodoxy and that a true Catholic Kingdom like Hungary will not fall to the Turks. Which shows the dept of difference between Orthodox Europe and Latin Europe.
After the Byzantines, a lot of the Orthodox world fell into Ottoman Realms and the Ottomans became the "it" nation of Europe to enjoy the hatred of the Latin West. While this didn't mean that they lumped the Orthodox world as Ottomans, it did mean that the Orthodox World continued to be isolated from the West, developing under a different culture and rule from the rest of Europe.
Russia and Ukraine, later also became the "it" nation of Latin Europe's hate. They were isolated from the rest of Latin Europe for centuries on and developed also culturally and politically different from the rest of Europe. Even when Russia 'rejoined' Europe with the efforts of Peter the Great, Russia still remained that "it" nation. Up till the 19th century, many Europeans didn't think Russians were truly European People. Then with the Soviet Union, Russia continued to develop differently from the rest of Europe in isolation.
Though while I admit that Romania may have very well rejoined Europe after they freed themselves from the Ottomans, nations like Greece and Russia are just distinctly different from the rest of Europe.
Okay, you have some semi-valid reasons for claiming that Orthodoxy and "Western" civilization are mutually exclusive - bearing in mind that I think most attempts at categorizing "Western" civilization are facile - but the stuff you just posted has virtually nothing to do with your original remark about the (Western) Roman Empire. You said a bunch of things about the Great Schism and so on - things that make sense if you're talking about, say, 1000 or 1400 or so, but which are totally irrelevant when talking about the empire that, quote, "ruled from Rome [sic] til the 5th Century".
Cashie
King
But it Is full of genocide and immorality, the second half is just full of fabrications.
Also drug trips.
aronnax
Let your spirit be free
Well, I mentioned the Western Roman Empire because Europe seems to have come from two halves after the splitting of the Empire. A Western Roman one and an Eastern Roman one. And the remnants of the Western Roman Empire, aka, France, England, Italy and later Spain versus the remnants of the Eastern Roman Empire in two cultural spheres.
Of course, I have to agree with you as stated before, I think this whole "defining western" civilisation thing quite silly since the best definition seems to encompass half the planet of vastly different things and we should just get rid of it. Even in Europe, at best, you have Latin-derived Europe and Byzantine derived Europe with countries like Romania and Bulgaria that straggle in the middle. FYI, I don't they are mutually exclusive. Just very different ends of the same spectrum.
Why semi-valid?
Similar threads
