How do they explain western dominance in other world regions?

[Bereta_Eder]

Well let's break those down shall we?



Classical legacy


meaning what?

Western Christianity

arbitrary, there are two fractions of christianity in what he defines both of which have different values


European languages

not exclusive to what he defines as western


separation of spiritual and temporal authority

meaning?



rule of law

not a defining aspect either

social pluralism and civil society

and in many other places of the world as well



representative bodies

again not exclusive and even, not definite in the "west"

individualism

again not exlsusive

I think these are pretty accurate. No other civilizations Your grief over the term "Western Civilization" is incorrect, as it was in common usage before the cold war. Toynbee, among others, was using it in the 1920s and 1930s.

it was taken from them and others as them and pumped up then used fto serve political aims.
it weasnt use before, ever, simply because it didnt exist, as you can see from the "defining aspects" oof hungtingon (who has already been shot down BTW by others much more capable than me)

[Drake Tungsten]

Classical legacy


meaning what?

Oh, sweet irony!

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Azazel
Boris: The Republic was EXTREMELY militaristic, certainly much more so than the empire.

Oh come now. Never under the Republic did the military exhert the influence and control it did under the Empire. It made and unmade emperors and occupied the core of Roman finances.

This militarism began in the Republic, yes, as a response to the external challenges Rome faced, but this was exactly what led to the empire, which was heralding collapse.

[Az]

I think that paiktis fails to understand the meaning of "definition". I think it's time to define definition : it must have ALL of those. It seems that paiktis is, once again disagrees just to disagree.

JohnT: this isn't correct. rationalism and scientific method are relatively new.

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Classical legacy


meaning what?

Oh, sweet irony!

but not a reply

[Bereta_Eder]

so azazel, the "West" doesnt
a) have all of these
b) hasnt an excusivity of all these as well

[Bosh]

Never under the Republic did the military exhert the influence and control it did under the Empire.

Yes but under the Republic there was a VASTLY greater chance that any given Roman citizen would spend some of his time poking some foreigner with a spear. The society in general was more militarized even if the government wasn't as dominated by the military.

[Boris Godunov]

Paiktis, no one said the individual characteristics were exclusive, but that their combination was unique to Western civilization. Your other points are spurious, because if you really knew Huntington, like you seem to claim, you'd know precisely what he meant in all those terms. You just don't like the answers.

Toynbee's use of "Western Civilization" was quite specific as a delineation of a separate, unique civilization. That others later took it for use as a political tool is irrelevant--he, as well as other prominent historians--felt it was a distinct civilization, as distinct as Hellenic culture or Sinic.

[JohnT]

And he was right.

[Bereta_Eder]

in other words no reply to what azazel also claimed and I answered.

about western civilization being used as a term in the 1920's by a handful of theoriticians and then being picked and pumped to serve political aims, it's more of a point in favor of it's non existance than anything else, i'd say

[Bosh]

Paiktis, no one said the individual characteristics were exclusive, but that their combination was unique to Western civilization.

But I can't think of a single example of all 8 being combined until there stopped being Established State Churches in the US. You don't get real separation Church and State in Europe until the French Revolution and the various French revolutionary regimes and the Empire were lacking in a lot of areas. Was there no western civilization before that?

[Az]

Oh come now. Never under the Republic did the military exhert the influence and control it did under the Empire. It made and unmade emperors and occupied the core of Roman finances.

under the republic, military and political leaders were one ( or to be exact: two ). The consuls led the Roman armies to war, armies that were formed from conscripted citizens.

but not a reply

The funniest thing coming from you. Why does he have to give a reply to bunch of incoherent phrases.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Boshko
Yes but under the Republic there was a VASTLY greater chance that any given Roman citizen would spend some of his time poking some foreigner with a spear. The society in general was more militarized even if the government wasn't as dominated by the military.

But it's exactly that government comes to be dominated by militarism and there is a vast increase in external conquest at the hands of a specialized military force (rather than citizen armies organized for defense or reactionary military campaigns) that is the point of which the Roman elan comes to a point of shifting to decline.

Of course, classifying Rome as a distinct civilization is problematic, which is what my first answer should have been. It is typically considered the tail end of Hellenic civilization, as there is a difference between political state and civilization.

[Bereta_Eder]

they're self explanatory.

[Bereta_Eder]

let's make it even more clear

Classical legacy

exists in many places including russia, doens exist in the same degree in other places such as norway or ireland



Western Christianity

arbitrary, there are two fractions of christianity in what he defines both of which have different values, so it is arbitrary. if separation of church and state are what he means, where was that more apparent than post soviet democracies



European languages

exist even beyong europe (india) and dont exist within europe (finnish hungarian)


separation of spiritual and temporal authority

again meaning what?


rule of law

not a defining aspect either exits doesnt always exist in full motion within europe (ex soviet countries) exists outside europe (many places)


social pluralism and civil society

and in many other places of the world as well and notnecessairily within "western europe" (as in special cases - N. ireland etc poland's conservatism, yet india has it)



representative bodies

again not exclusive and even, not definite in the "west"

individualism

again not exlsusive




that was the for the dumb version



Boris, I didnt even have in my mind hungtington when i talked about the non existance of "Western civilization", to be "sad" that it didnt include greece, if that's what you mean bys aying im sad and dont agree.

Im still asking about definite aspects of "Western civ"