Christianity and the Enlightenment
They had 2500 years, a large chunk of the world's population even in 0AD, long periods of political stability, an intelligent, capable populace, a large economy, and they went nowhere. Produced little of enduring worth when stacked against the mountains of cultural, artistic, moral and intellectual achievements of the West. They barely stack up to India, a Hindu-infested cesspool, in terms of cultural achievements.
The theory that China could produce an Enlightenment has been tested. It failed.
Even today they lack Enlightenment values, despite having a model to learn from.
What is different about China that made them fail so badly?
China was advancing all the way through the 14th/15th century, and it really wasn't until the late part of the Ming Dynasty, when the move towards isolationism happened, that China's downward turn really began. (It is not unreasonable to argue that China was technologically advanced beyond Europe during this time period.)
You can argue that at this point, Confucian values did play a role. But that's insufficient as an explanation because it Confucianism had existed for a couple millenia and this was the first really severe isolationist move. It would be like saying that Trump is president of the US because of all the Christians (despite the fact that there are clear segments of Christians that voted against him). It's just too simplistic of a view.
Which is pretty much everything you're doing. Everything you're putting forth is overly simplistic, which leads to overfitting the historical data to your arguments.
They had 2500 years, a large chunk of the world's population even in 0AD, long periods of political stability, an intelligent, capable populace, a large economy, and they went nowhere. Produced little of enduring worth when stacked against the mountains of cultural, artistic, moral and intellectual achievements of the West.
The list of Chinese inventions, discoveries and societal developments is very long, and many of these were exported to the west. They were extremely advanced when it came to writing, architecture, maths, civil service systems, production, agriculture, metalworking, chemistry, astronomy, medicine, hygiene, monetary systems and banking, to name but a few.
One the most integral developments for European civilizations was the silk road, which connected China to the "west". Your post is so reeking of willful ignorance on this and related issues that it is difficult to fathom.
Really? We're referring to one billion people as an infestation? Reported. Try Stormfront instead, they seem like your crowd.
China was advancing all the way through the 14th/15th century, and it really wasn't until the late part of the Ming Dynasty, when the move towards isolationism happened, that China's downward turn really began. (It is not unreasonable to argue that China was technologically advanced beyond Europe during this time period.)
They had 2500 years, a large chunk of the world's population even in 0AD, long periods of political stability, an intelligent, capable populace, a large economy, and they went nowhere. Produced little of enduring worth when stacked against the mountains of cultural, artistic, moral and intellectual achievements of the West.
Yet, like I said, they went nowhere and produced nothing of enduring worth when compared the mountain of Western achievements.
You can argue that at this point, Confucian values did play a role. But that's insufficient as an explanation because it Confucianism had existed for a couple millenia and this was the first really severe isolationist move. It would be like saying that Trump is president of the US because of all the Christians (despite the fact that there are clear segments of Christians that voted against him). It's just too simplistic of a view.
Confucian principles strongly discourage a mercantile class. Without a profit motive, there is far less reason to explore, to trade, to innovate. Again, China had a ridiculously large head start, the world's largest population, relative political stability/ greater freedom from barbarian conquerors that destroyed many West Asia and European civilizations, and they merely ticked along, despite an organized, advanced society and a large intelligent populace. For 2000 years. Why is that?
Indeed, even last century, it was Confucian view of mercantilism that allowed Mao to sweep to power - the populace was generally against a profit motive because they were so heavily collectivist due to Confucian principles -and start his vicious torture of the "bourgeois rightists" - basically, anyone who ran a business. Did you notice what that did to Chinese society?
On top of that, the Chinese had a religious view that the Emperor was a living God and the supreme power on Earth. Do you think that makes people outward looking, or inward looking? Do you think that creates a flowering of ideas and political systems and alternative philosophies, or does it create a perpetuating system of maintaining and not questioning old "wisdoms" and obeying the social order?
Again, Confucian philosophy is completely inimical to the kind of flowering of ideas and powerful and painful rejection of old ideologies and the old social order, which led to the Enlightenment.. Hence my claim that the Enlightenment could not happen in China - it had a self perpetuating system of rigid adherence to the past, could develop no philosophical mechanism, as in Christianity, for escaping it.
They had 2500 years, a large chunk of the world's population even in 0AD, long periods of political stability, an intelligent, capable populace, a large economy, and they went nowhere. Produced little of enduring worth when stacked against the mountains of cultural, artistic, moral and intellectual achievements of the West.
The list of Chinese inventions, discoveries and societal developments is very long, and many of these were exported to the west. They were extremely advanced when it came to writing, architecture, maths, civil service systems, production, agriculture, metalworking, chemistry, astronomy, medicine, hygiene, monetary systems and banking, to name but a few.
One the most integral developments for European civilizations was the silk road, which connected China to the "west". Your post is so reeking of willful ignorance on this and related issues that it is difficult to fathom.
The list of Chinese inventions is dwarfed by the West.
The list of Chinese intellectual achievements is dwarfed by the West.
The list of Chinese architectural achievements is dwarfed by the West.
The list of Chinese philosophical achievements is dwarfed by the West.
The list of Chinese scientific achievements is dwarfed by the West
The list and variety of Chinese artistic achievements in music, dance, painting, etc is dwarfed by the West.
Do you disagree that the above is true? I would love to see you do that, because it would destroy all your credibility.
Why did it happen like this? That is all I am asking. I point to the fact that China and India started far ahead and had most of the world's population and economy. An intelligent, capable populace. No religions like Catholicism or Islam to keep them down. Yet they stagnated. Why? I contend that it was Confucian ideals, which are the antithesis of a flowering of diverse thought, and the antithesis of turning over the existing social order and socially accepted truths.
One the most integral developments for European civilizations was the silk road, which connected China to the "west".
For that matter, why didn't the Islamic word? They were far more beneficiaries of the Silk Road than the West was. The Middle East was the crossroads of all trade. So it seems there are some holes in your thesis.
Hindu-infested
The caste system in India in particular is one of the most vile things around (and no, it wasn't created by the British, it's as old as time).
The seventh century Chinese traveler Xuanzang listed butchers, fishermen, public performers, executioners, and scavengers as marked castes living outside the city. Anything to do with a dead cow or its hide is the work only of untouchables. They were denied access to many Hindu temples, were not allowed to read religious Sanskrit books, could not use common village wells and tanks
Anyway, do you think a society which thinks and acts in this way will produce an Enlightenment? Such is my point.
I notice you and Aaron have given up arguing on Christianity and the Enlightenment, instead going on tangents and offering vile personal attacks ("Stormfront seem like your crowd"). Does that mean you concede the point that Christianity was central to the Enlgihtenment. Specifically by the flowering of philosophies, ant-authority, the primacy of a personal relationship with God, and overturning of old ideas, that Jesus' teachings allowed?
"It's impossible for an Eastern country to have a Western-style Enlightenment."
I mean, horray for having a true thesis for the dumbest reasons possible. I feel almost as though you're Rome, and you're saying "This place is so awesome and it's going to be like this forever!"
The idea that isolationism was the cause of China's stagnation is a simplistic myopic view. WHY were they isolationist? Because of Confucianism and their primitive religions.
Confucian principles strongly discourage a mercantile class. Without a profit motive, there is far less reason to explore, to trade, to innovate.
China, being a vast country and well-resourced, did not have as much motive in general for the type of imperialization of the rest of the world. It was already large enough to have everything that it needed. It had the economic capacity to be self-sufficient, and it moved in that direction.
I will once again draw my analogy with Christianity. I think it's false to say that the American expansion westward happened because Manifest Destiny is a Christian idea. It's true that Manifest Destiny did "fit" with the prevailing Christian perspective, but to say that it happened *BECAUSE* Christianity is narrow-minded. I mean, it was actually pulled off by a predominantly Christian society, so only Christians could have done it, right?
I notice you and Aaron have given up arguing on Christianity and the Enlightenment, instead going on tangents and offering vile personal attacks ("Stormfront seem like your crowd"). Does that mean you concede the point that Christianity was central to the Enlgihtenment. Specifically by the flowering of philosophies, ant-authority, the primacy of a personal relationship with God, and overturning of old ideas, that Jesus' teachings allowed?
Originally Posted by me
I don't even think you're *wrong* that Christianity played a role in advancing the Enlightenment. But your argument looks really, really overfitted.
So let's look at a couple of examples. Art is one. Western art has produced copious quantities every style of art imaginable, from impressionism to art nouveau to surrealism to hundreds of other styles, exploring practically every method of expression through all their philosophical and practical differences. It has founded all the major and manifest schools of expression.
Or take philosophy. The Western canon crushes the Eastern cannon in terms of diversity, breadth, depth, and so on. Do you really want to debate this?
How many fields out the thousands you can name where Western achievement, breadth, depth, sophistication, doesn't crush Chinese attempts in that same field? Perhaps martial arts and calligraphy, around 1900?
There's a reason why we talk about Greek genius and Greek achievements in philosophy and literature, and not Egyptian ones. That's because the Greeks crushed the Egyptians. I assume it isn't racist to say that - enough time has passed that we're not insulting people by pointing out that one culture crushed another in cultural and intellectual achievements.
"It's impossible for an Eastern country to have a Western-style Enlightenment."
Might other things have contributed? Sure. Something as complex and rare as the Enlightenment needs multiple elements to happen. But the Chinese had most of these, for many centuries.
I mean, horray for having a true thesis for the dumbest reasons possible. I feel almost as though you're Rome, and you're saying "This place is so awesome and it's going to be like this forever!"
If it were true that Confucianism was the cause of isolationism, then why would China need to change TO isolationism? Wouldn't it have been isolationism the whole time since Confucius (and the folk religions date back even further)? Confucianism was not suddenly introduced in the 15th century. Why would China have had some pretty vast exploration happening before if Confucianism was there the whole time? Something else clearly had to have happened.
The Japanese did the same thing you know. Saw Japan as the center of the world, the old ways as the best, and got left behind despite intelligence and talent. Even despite the fact that they were forced to be an outward looking nation due to their geography and resources.
Confucianism abhors change, and it defined China. Confucianism has little interest in trade or anything outside the family and the local ruler. It has a strong disinterest in exactly what Enlightenment was - questioning old ways and examining everything and having no sacred cows. Is it any wonder that China retreated from a changing world?
This is true. And here you seem to be arguing against a straw man. I'm not saying that Confucianism played no role whatsoever. But it's just too simplistic to say it is *THE* cause.
When I look at the reasons why Australian Aborigines never had an Enlightenment, they are manifest. While their culture was backwards and their religion absurd/animist, that wasn't the defining thing that stopped them. It was lack of an economy, a large enough population, a land conducive to settlement.
With the Chinese, what else was there but philosophy? You mention this:
China, being a vast country and well-resourced, did not have as much motive in general for the type of imperialization of the rest of the world. It was already large enough to have everything that it needed. It had the economic capacity to be self-sufficient, and it moved in that direction.
And Christian proselytizing (just like Muslim proselytizing and the desire to establish a global caliphate and put the whole world under Islam) was also part of what drove people out to new worlds - to spread the word of Jesus to the savages, to conquer new lands and bring them under Christ, to save those souls that could be saved. Missionaries led much of the exploration, and they did it in the name of Christianity.
I contend that if China was Christian, it would have been a very different nation, self sufficient or not. Europe and surrounds was as self sufficient as China - they had no need for the new world any more than the Chinese did.
I will once again draw my analogy with Christianity. I think it's false to say that the American expansion westward happened because Manifest Destiny is a Christian idea. It's true that Manifest Destiny did "fit" with the prevailing Christian perspective, but to say that it happened *BECAUSE* Christianity is narrow-minded. I mean, it was actually pulled off by a predominantly Christian society, so only Christians could have done it, right?
So let's look at a couple of examples. Art is one. Western art has produced copious quantities every style of art imaginable, from impressionism to art nouveau to surrealism to hundreds of other styles, exploring practically every method of expression through all their philosophical and practical differences. It has founded all the major and manifest schools of expression.
Or take philosophy. The Western canon crushes the Eastern cannon in terms of diversity, breadth, depth, and so on. Do you really want to debate this?
How many fields out the thousands you can name where Western achievement, breadth, depth, sophistication, doesn't crush Chinese attempts in that same field? Perhaps martial arts and calligraphy, around 1900?
But that's different from saying that it could not have happened. That's simply observing that it didn't happen.
I contend that if China was Christian, it would have been a very different nation, self sufficient or not.
At this point, I think your hand has been turned face up. You're conflating "Western" with "Christian" and making a lot of other errors of that type.
It's a good thing that China has completely abandoned everything Confucian. That must be the explanation for their increased contributions to science over the last few years. Collectivist perspectives are definitely anti-science.
https://www.nature.com/nature/journa.../528S170a.html
https://www.nature.com/nature/journa.../528S170a.html
Please, don't even try to wiggle out. Your phrasing left nothing to the imagination.
For there to be an argument about Christianity being the reason for enlightenment, you have to present one. You have stated that this took place, I argued (historically) for why this was incorrect.
You then spent about a 1000 words jabbering about Islam for no apparent reason and when I pointed it out, you seemed convinced that was the way to go. Since I have no interest in discussions where any argument (including mine) that take place solely in someone else's head, I left it at that.
I don't really have any idea why you at some later felt the need to scream ignorant lies about ancient and medieval China, but I certainly needed to point them out. Ignorance about history bugs me to no end, especially when it is used to affirm some current day view of the world.
If you really feel so strongly about enlightenment, you should give it a try some day.
For there to be an argument about Christianity being the reason for enlightenment, you have to present one. You have stated that this took place, I argued (historically) for why this was incorrect.
You then spent about a 1000 words jabbering about Islam for no apparent reason and when I pointed it out, you seemed convinced that was the way to go. Since I have no interest in discussions where any argument (including mine) that take place solely in someone else's head, I left it at that.
I don't really have any idea why you at some later felt the need to scream ignorant lies about ancient and medieval China, but I certainly needed to point them out. Ignorance about history bugs me to no end, especially when it is used to affirm some current day view of the world.
If you really feel so strongly about enlightenment, you should give it a try some day.
Of course, Hammurabi was referred to vis a vis Moses and the Decalogue and so cross cultural comprehension is fair game. I believe the difference between the East and west has been clearly expounded . Its not enough to state that "we are all the same" and then pass laws making one a criminal if he does not homage the one and true mantra; we see this today.
"We are all men" is in the heart of the individual but no man or nation has the right to criminalize those who do not follow the abstracted notions of that to which we carry within our hearts. Man has to and will grow but this will not come about by draconian measures.
You men don't really expect to see a law, promulgated by the Pope, which states " OK,everybody will immediately become enlightened"?.
I believe that there are enough modern scholars who no longer look to the middle ages as the "dark ages", which is nothing more than clinical pap for the facile unconsidered.
Science in the 15th century .Do you really think that these beginnings should fit your preconceived notion of "UnChristianity" ?A History is the story of men, single individuals, embossed within their mileiu who brought understanding and comprehension to human souls.
Kepler, Newton,the Scholastics, the great universities all predated the supposed enlightenment. There is so much and the idea that one is separated from the other because of some present day one sided belief is pathetic and troubling.
http://whiteoakhistoricalsociety.org...-15th-century/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...l_universities
"We are all men" is in the heart of the individual but no man or nation has the right to criminalize those who do not follow the abstracted notions of that to which we carry within our hearts. Man has to and will grow but this will not come about by draconian measures.
You men don't really expect to see a law, promulgated by the Pope, which states " OK,everybody will immediately become enlightened"?.
I believe that there are enough modern scholars who no longer look to the middle ages as the "dark ages", which is nothing more than clinical pap for the facile unconsidered.
Science in the 15th century .Do you really think that these beginnings should fit your preconceived notion of "UnChristianity" ?A History is the story of men, single individuals, embossed within their mileiu who brought understanding and comprehension to human souls.
Kepler, Newton,the Scholastics, the great universities all predated the supposed enlightenment. There is so much and the idea that one is separated from the other because of some present day one sided belief is pathetic and troubling.
http://whiteoakhistoricalsociety.org...-15th-century/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...l_universities
Prove your claim. If you also don't have a limited imagination, describe three styles of art that have artistic value and don't exist anywhere.
You could become a wealthy celebrated artist if you can come up with worthwhile styles of art that don't exist yet, since you claim that people who can't imagine new styles of art have "very limited imagination".
Regardless, this is typical low-rent intellect from you. You ignore the obvious point (that the West's art by any objective measure you could apply - artistic range, depth, expression, variety, philosophy) is far ahead of China's. You ignore other person's point and throw out a personal attack red herring instead. It shows a low level of intellectual curiosity, and a poor upbringing.
Again, an absolutely brilliant insight! I agree that if China were different, it would be different!
Collectivist perspectives are definitely anti-science.
Yes, post trends rather than absolute values. God you're a dishonest clown. Of course the world's largest population growing into economic strength from a low base is going to produce more and more high quality science. Your graphs say exactly nothing relevant; in fact they make my point.
Please, don't even try to wiggle out. Your phrasing left nothing to the imagination.
For there to be an argument about Christianity being the reason for enlightenment, you have to present one. You have stated that this took place, I argued (historically) for why this was incorrect.
For there to be an argument about Christianity being the reason for enlightenment, you have to present one. You have stated that this took place, I argued (historically) for why this was incorrect.
Let's go through a list:
- The anarchist individualism/anti-authority of the Anabaptist movement (and other protestant movements) changed society profoundly. These came directly from the bible and the teachings of Jesus; such movements are nigh impossible in Islam or Confucian ideology.
- Equity in law arose from Christian considerations of fairness and justice and the very idea of "do unto others", which has no parallel in any religion save maybe Buddhism. The clergy in fact provided a parallel system of equitable relief, based on principles of Christian fairness. This in turn formed the basis of all eventual freedoms. The idea that all men should be treated equal is a Christian ideal that arises from Christian principles of all being equal under God, and no man should judge another lest he be judged himself. Islam has nothing comparable, which is why it has horrifically bigoted and misogynist laws against and women and non-Muslims that have survived to this day. Hinduism has nothing comparable. It is tribal rather than individual. Confucianism favors loyalty to the family and obedience of ruling classes over the purity of principles or morality or answering only to one's conscience in a deeply personal relationship with God.
- There's a good argument to be made that the salons of Europe, particularly France which then spread elsewhere, were a huge part of civilizing society, and that the participation of women in those salons and in public life generally was an enormous civilizing and humanizing force. Such a thing would be impossible under Islam for example, which has women as owned chattel of men. The bible has one of the mildest views of women, it has a few bad phrases, but nothing like the detailed prescriptions of their second class status in the world's other major religion.
- Christianity tolerates dissent in a way few other religions do. There are blasphemy laws, sure, but they are superseded by a kinder view of the world from Jesus. A prescription that we should not judge others, lest we be judged. That we should turned the other cheek to slight and insult. Contrast with the world's second largest religion, where criticism of the religion is met with murder, even today. Where merely leaving the religion is met with shunning and murder. Or contrast with Confucianism or other Asian religions, where veneration of elders is a holy principle that goes far beyond that in Christianity. Thus Christian societies were always going to have a greater flowering and variety of ideas - including heretical ideas - than other religions. And it was heretical ideas and their ability to flower that was part of what led society to new ways of thinking.
- Christianity tolerates outsiders, unlike the world's second largest religion. Islam has basic and deep precepts of convert or be murdered. Christianity believes we're all God's children. People are always cruel to outsiders, but a Christian worldview tempers that, putting all men equal before God. Ultimately those principles even made it into the US constitution.
- Christianity has a work ethic (it requires faith as well as works) not shared by other religions. The bible has many passages that make it clear that salvation requires both faith and works. And works include doing things for others, being selfless, not being lazy, taking responsibility, avoiding things like sloth and gluttony. I don't think I need to explain the benefit of such a belief in both civilizing society and moving forward its economy.
- Christianity is largely free from ritual control of daily life. You don't have to pray 5 times a day, facing Mecca; you don't have to go and meditate, you don't have to do bizarre rituals like in Hinduism. Rituals have built up around various denominations, but individuals are free to ignore them, unlike in many other religions. These leads to diversity of thought and action, and freedom to adapt and develop a culture of work.
- Christianity is a concerned with one truth, and a singular God who we can imperfectly know in a personal relationship. This lead to a large and rich body of idealist philosophy, which, as it was broken down, lead to a flowering of alternative and derivative philosophies. It was in a way the bedrock from which modern philosophy was built. Contrast that with say, Hinduism, or various third world religions, in which there is no eternal truth, just warring powerful beings who you can petition. Contrast that with Islam, with its focus on daily life and proper behavior within that daily life, and on political life. The influence of ethereal ideals and monotheism on the development of idealism and philosophy is powerful, imo. If the path to power is internal, if people search for power and knowledge of God inside themselves, rather than through rituals or by petitioning a powerful being, it leads to a more intellectual culture.
- Christianity was apolitical. This is enormous, compared to something like Islam. An apolotical religion allows the possibility for separation of church and state. Indeed, Christianity explicitly exhorts: "My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But as it is, my kingdom is not from the world". This is a world apart from Islam, which describes in detail how law and politics should be handled. Thus political diversity and separation of Church and state (and religion and daily/political life) could be developed in Christian nations, in a way that wasn't possible in something like Islam, or in religions that explicitly stated as a matter of theological truth, the unquestioned divinity of the Emperor, like some Japanese religions, for example.
- Christianity focuses on one life, on which we are judged, and no other. This has an enormous motivating effect on living a good lie and doing good works. Contrast with, for example, many strains of Buddhism, which teach eternal rebirth and thus remove the urgency from action.
There are lots more reasons why Christianity was a uniquely civilizing force.
- The anarchist individualism/anti-authority of the Anabaptist movement (and other protestant movements) changed society profoundly. These came directly from the bible and the teachings of Jesus; such movements are nigh impossible in Islam or Confucian ideology.
- Equity in law arose from Christian considerations of fairness and justice and the very idea of "do unto others", which has no parallel in any religion save maybe Buddhism. The clergy in fact provided a parallel system of equitable relief, based on principles of Christian fairness. This in turn formed the basis of all eventual freedoms. The idea that all men should be treated equal is a Christian ideal that arises from Christian principles of all being equal under God, and no man should judge another lest he be judged himself. Islam has nothing comparable, which is why it has horrifically bigoted and misogynist laws against and women and non-Muslims that have survived to this day. Hinduism has nothing comparable. It is tribal rather than individual. Confucianism favors loyalty to the family and obedience of ruling classes over the purity of principles or morality or answering only to one's conscience in a deeply personal relationship with God.
- There's a good argument to be made that the salons of Europe, particularly France which then spread elsewhere, were a huge part of civilizing society, and that the participation of women in those salons and in public life generally was an enormous civilizing and humanizing force. Such a thing would be impossible under Islam for example, which has women as owned chattel of men. The bible has one of the mildest views of women, it has a few bad phrases, but nothing like the detailed prescriptions of their second class status in the world's other major religion.
- Christianity tolerates dissent in a way few other religions do. There are blasphemy laws, sure, but they are superseded by a kinder view of the world from Jesus. A prescription that we should not judge others, lest we be judged. That we should turned the other cheek to slight and insult. Contrast with the world's second largest religion, where criticism of the religion is met with murder, even today. Where merely leaving the religion is met with shunning and murder. Or contrast with Confucianism or other Asian religions, where veneration of elders is a holy principle that goes far beyond that in Christianity. Thus Christian societies were always going to have a greater flowering and variety of ideas - including heretical ideas - than other religions. And it was heretical ideas and their ability to flower that was part of what led society to new ways of thinking.
- Christianity tolerates outsiders, unlike the world's second largest religion. Islam has basic and deep precepts of convert or be murdered. Christianity believes we're all God's children. People are always cruel to outsiders, but a Christian worldview tempers that, putting all men equal before God. Ultimately those principles even made it into the US constitution.
- Christianity has a work ethic (it requires faith as well as works) not shared by other religions. The bible has many passages that make it clear that salvation requires both faith and works. And works include doing things for others, being selfless, not being lazy, taking responsibility, avoiding things like sloth and gluttony. I don't think I need to explain the benefit of such a belief in both civilizing society and moving forward its economy.
- Christianity is largely free from ritual control of daily life. You don't have to pray 5 times a day, facing Mecca; you don't have to go and meditate, you don't have to do bizarre rituals like in Hinduism. Rituals have built up around various denominations, but individuals are free to ignore them, unlike in many other religions. These leads to diversity of thought and action, and freedom to adapt and develop a culture of work.
- Christianity is a concerned with one truth, and a singular God who we can imperfectly know in a personal relationship. This lead to a large and rich body of idealist philosophy, which, as it was broken down, lead to a flowering of alternative and derivative philosophies. It was in a way the bedrock from which modern philosophy was built. Contrast that with say, Hinduism, or various third world religions, in which there is no eternal truth, just warring powerful beings who you can petition. Contrast that with Islam, with its focus on daily life and proper behavior within that daily life, and on political life. The influence of ethereal ideals and monotheism on the development of idealism and philosophy is powerful, imo. If the path to power is internal, if people search for power and knowledge of God inside themselves, rather than through rituals or by petitioning a powerful being, it leads to a more intellectual culture.
- Christianity was apolitical. This is enormous, compared to something like Islam. An apolotical religion allows the possibility for separation of church and state. Indeed, Christianity explicitly exhorts: "My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But as it is, my kingdom is not from the world". This is a world apart from Islam, which describes in detail how law and politics should be handled. Thus political diversity and separation of Church and state (and religion and daily/political life) could be developed in Christian nations, in a way that wasn't possible in something like Islam, or in religions that explicitly stated as a matter of theological truth, the unquestioned divinity of the Emperor, like some Japanese religions, for example.
- Christianity focuses on one life, on which we are judged, and no other. This has an enormous motivating effect on living a good lie and doing good works. Contrast with, for example, many strains of Buddhism, which teach eternal rebirth and thus remove the urgency from action.
There are lots more reasons why Christianity was a uniquely civilizing force.
You then spent about a 1000 words jabbering about Islam for no apparent reason
I don't really have any idea why you at some later felt the need to scream ignorant lies about ancient and medieval China, but I certainly needed to point them out. Ignorance about history bugs me to no end, especially when it is used to affirm some current day view of the world.
If you really feel so strongly about enlightenment, you should give it a try some day.
You should really be less bigoted against ideas that aren't fashionable; truth often lies that way. You're taking a Chinese Confucian approach ("anyone who disagrees with my social conscience and my sacred cows is worth little and must be ostracized") rather than an Enlightenment approach.
Western art has produced copious quantities every style of art imaginable
Yes, it absolutely is. Has it gone completely over your head that China's rise of a poverty-ridden craphole has come from the abandonment of core tenets of Confucian philosophy? China embraced mercantilism (rejecting the Confucian disdain of it) and some inward looking Confucian ideals, and flourished. That's not a coincidence.
https://theamericanscholar.org/confu.../#.WTF-E-vyuUk
During my recent visit to China, the subject of Confucius, the legendary Chinese philosopher and teacher who lived between 551 and 479 B.C., came up on numerous occasions. Many students I spoke to expressed their reverence for his teaching and told me that they were reading The Analects, the compilation of aphorisms attributed to him. This was a surprise, given that the Chinese Communist Party had condemned Confucianism as a reactionary philosophy.
But Confucian ideas are now making a comeback. Eighty Confucius Centers in the United States and more throughout the world are partially funded by the People’s Republic of China. This embrace of the ancient philosopher is thanks, in part, to the spirit of openness and reform sweeping through many areas of Chinese life. But it is also due to the nature of Confucian ideas, which support the continuity of Chinese history, from which Communist ideology cannot be excluded.
But Confucian ideas are now making a comeback. Eighty Confucius Centers in the United States and more throughout the world are partially funded by the People’s Republic of China. This embrace of the ancient philosopher is thanks, in part, to the spirit of openness and reform sweeping through many areas of Chinese life. But it is also due to the nature of Confucian ideas, which support the continuity of Chinese history, from which Communist ideology cannot be excluded.
Most of what I posted are the same views held by the same men who brought about the Enlightenment. You hold fashionable revisionist views that have only existed for maybe the last 50 years, and will not doubt go out of fashion again. You should try considering whether your view is actually enlightened or ignorant.
Voltaire:
"Our [religion] is assuredly the most ridiculous, the most absurd and the most bloody religion which has ever infected this world. Your Majesty will do the human race an eternal service by extirpating this infamous superstition, I do not say among the rabble, who are not worthy of being enlightened and who are apt for every yoke; I say among honest people, among men who think, among those who wish to think. … My one regret in dying is that I cannot aid you in this noble enterprise, the finest and most respectable which the human mind can point out.."
"Our [religion] is assuredly the most ridiculous, the most absurd and the most bloody religion which has ever infected this world. Your Majesty will do the human race an eternal service by extirpating this infamous superstition, I do not say among the rabble, who are not worthy of being enlightened and who are apt for every yoke; I say among honest people, among men who think, among those who wish to think. … My one regret in dying is that I cannot aid you in this noble enterprise, the finest and most respectable which the human mind can point out.."
Hume:
Where the deity is represented as infinitely superior to mankind, this belief, though altogether just, is apt, when joined with superstitious terrors, to sink the human mind into the lowest submission and abasement, and to represent the monkish virtues of mortification, penance, humility, and passive suffering, as the only qualities which are acceptable to him. But where the Gods are conceived to be only a little superior to mankind, and to have been, many of them, advanced from that inferior rank, we are more at our ease in our addresses to them, and may even, without profaneness, aspire sometimes to a rivalship and emulation of them. Hence activity, spirit, courage, magnanimity, love of liberty, and all the virtues which aggrandise a people....
This gave rise to the observation of Machiavel, that the doctrines of the Christian religion (meaning the Catholic; for he knew no other) which recommend only passive courage and suffering, had subdued the spirit of mankind, and had fitted them for slavery and subjection. An observation which would certainly be just, were there not many other circumstances in human society which control the genius and character of a religion.
Where the deity is represented as infinitely superior to mankind, this belief, though altogether just, is apt, when joined with superstitious terrors, to sink the human mind into the lowest submission and abasement, and to represent the monkish virtues of mortification, penance, humility, and passive suffering, as the only qualities which are acceptable to him. But where the Gods are conceived to be only a little superior to mankind, and to have been, many of them, advanced from that inferior rank, we are more at our ease in our addresses to them, and may even, without profaneness, aspire sometimes to a rivalship and emulation of them. Hence activity, spirit, courage, magnanimity, love of liberty, and all the virtues which aggrandise a people....
This gave rise to the observation of Machiavel, that the doctrines of the Christian religion (meaning the Catholic; for he knew no other) which recommend only passive courage and suffering, had subdued the spirit of mankind, and had fitted them for slavery and subjection. An observation which would certainly be just, were there not many other circumstances in human society which control the genius and character of a religion.
Diderot:
This is what I think of Christian dogma. I will only say one word on its morality: It is that a Catholic who is father of a family, convinced that the maxims of the Gospels must be practiced under penalty of what is called hell, and given the extreme difficulty in reaching this degree of perfection, which human weakness prevents, I see nothing else to be done than for him to take his child by the foot and smash him against the ground, or to suffocate it at birth. By this act he saves it from the peril of damnation and assures him eternal happiness. And I maintain that this act, far from being criminal, should be considered infinitely praiseworthy, since it is founded upon paternal love, which demands that all good fathers do all the good possible for their children.
This is what I think of Christian dogma. I will only say one word on its morality: It is that a Catholic who is father of a family, convinced that the maxims of the Gospels must be practiced under penalty of what is called hell, and given the extreme difficulty in reaching this degree of perfection, which human weakness prevents, I see nothing else to be done than for him to take his child by the foot and smash him against the ground, or to suffocate it at birth. By this act he saves it from the peril of damnation and assures him eternal happiness. And I maintain that this act, far from being criminal, should be considered infinitely praiseworthy, since it is founded upon paternal love, which demands that all good fathers do all the good possible for their children.
Kant:
Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed nonage. Nonage is the inability to use one's own understanding without another's guidance. This nonage is self-imposed if its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in indecision and lack of courage to use one's own mind without another's guidance. Dare to know! (Sapere aude.) "Have the courage to use your own understanding," is therefore the motto of the enlightenment...
I have emphasized the main point of the enlightenment--man's emergence from his self-imposed nonage--primarily in religious matters, because our rulers have no interest in playing the guardian to their subjects in the arts and sciences. Above all, nonage in religion is not only the most harmful but the most dishonorable.
Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed nonage. Nonage is the inability to use one's own understanding without another's guidance. This nonage is self-imposed if its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in indecision and lack of courage to use one's own mind without another's guidance. Dare to know! (Sapere aude.) "Have the courage to use your own understanding," is therefore the motto of the enlightenment...
I have emphasized the main point of the enlightenment--man's emergence from his self-imposed nonage--primarily in religious matters, because our rulers have no interest in playing the guardian to their subjects in the arts and sciences. Above all, nonage in religion is not only the most harmful but the most dishonorable.
It is true Christianity, as the dominant religion of Europe, had a big impact on the Enlightenment. You can find some of the ideas of the Enlightenment in Christianity as well as outside of it. I even think it is likely that you can draw a causal line from various changes in Christendom and Christianity to the Enlightenment. But this is like saying that WW2 caused the peace in Europe that has followed it. The Enlightenment was (in part) a reaction to the perceived failures of Christianity and its churches. That doesn't mean we should praise Christianity itself for being more enlightened.
Very few can appreciate or care for dogma but it came forth from the highest spirituality and became obtunded by a mental approach which demanded only sense bound appreciation.
If Christianity is spoken to and related to by the materialistic ethos then there is no rapprochement in spirit or body for the materialistic ethos will not allow it.
Now, it is true that the power of Rome admixed with the Christian entelechy and by and large the political aspects of the Roman Empire continued on into the 15th century via Rome.
Up until the 4th century and prior the Romans welcomed all spirit beings into their pantheon, those of their conquered peoples. Zeus, Apollo, Mithra,...we've all come across the names of these lesser deities or gods , so to speak.
At that time , we all know the story;the emperor Constantine decreed Christianity as the official religion of the Empire. He converted on his death bed for otherwise he would have not been able to punish opponents via the death sentence. And so we have the amalgam of the Roman Empire with the Christian ethos on an exoteric basis, by decree so to speak.
I liken this act as if a youth wears his Father's overcoat which flows to his feet with a fedora which again covers his ears; a humorous picture if you will. The christian youth has placed upon him the karma of the Roman Empire and has a great deal to "shake off", if I may.
The could be no greater polarity than that of the Roman Empire and the Christian state of being but this exoteric state moved on.
Prior to Constantine there was a rich "attempted" comprehension of the Christ and his aperance on the earth. the Gnostics knew something but even they did not comprehend the Christ. we see Paul executing Christians because of this lack of comprehension until his revelation on the road to Damascus. the Synagogues were merged with Christian followers but still the understanding was not satisfying. They all knew the importance of the event but the mental and aesthetic clarity they desired was lacking.
Augustine chose the Church because he thought it vain to attempt to understand the Christ Being in the manner of the old initiation (mystery) centers. the idea of "faith" arose in that each member of the Church knew someone who witnessed the Event or someone who knew this someone; back to the past.
People changed in body, soul and spirit but the Event on Golgotha stood in their minds as a "picture" of the future of the human soul for all men through the Christ; the Christ who led the Hebrews in the pillars of clouds and fire; the same who spoke to Moses in the mineral kingdom and that same Being the Mystery Centers brought the initiate to perceive in a trance state, known as the Christos.
The Christ Being and Christianity and the work of the human soul will not be totally understood until we have all changed into the highest of beings of a multiplethic spirituality. We work to this understanding or better yet our experience of this Being who has been with us, in our hearts, as a template of our future, the future of the human being. This is Christianity; the Christ who is always with us to the end of times who presents himself to each soul ; this is Christianity.
A man is born out of the spiritual world as a spirit/soul being who enters into the body offered by his ancestors and this body becomes the chariot of the human soul; the body being the paints and palette of the artistic human, the souls of men.
At death the human being brings forth qualities to which he has earned between birth and death, travels through the higher realms, gaining strengths and abilities in that realms(s) and returns with his mission prefigured just prior to his incarnation and adds worth and value to the human realm the realm of spirit/soul human beings.
Reincarnation ends at the time of the complete metamorphosis of human beings into a spiritual being(s) and the earth will likewise be morphed into a new realm of existence.
To look at Christianity as if written on a wall with words and symbols doesn't speak to the active movement of the human state with the Christ within; people take time and not all are the same and all the "isms" in the world will not grasp this the creation of the "new" human being, in freedom as the human being manifests his own destiny, not in coercion but in Love the selfless acts of the human soul.
Too long but I have to speak to the realm after death. There are higher beings who look out and are anxious that the human soul will reach his destiny. these beings work within the earth and are known as these "heathen gods" or the the angelic beings of the Christian and Judaic worship. Mankind, to a lesser or greater extent in varying periods of time is their gracious work to which we , in some manner , appreciate in the realm from death until the next birth.
In that case I'll also include Jews and Muslims within Christianity as well.
It's not a haphazard entrance but well comprehended between death and new birth and we "demand" this entrance in order to fulfill our worth and and the worth of all human beings; again each to his abilities.
Just in passing, one will find that advanced men of other cultures incarnating into another as an aid to those of the second culture. An example of this is the Hebrew Prophets who incarnated into the Hebrew race as helpers; they were all "initiates" of other cultures who brought their abilities for the improvement and betterment not only of Judaism but of mankind in specifics.
I even think it is likely that you can draw a causal line from various changes in Christendom and Christianity to the Enlightenment.
But this is like saying that WW2 caused the peace in Europe that has followed it. The Enlightenment was (in part) a reaction to the perceived failures of Christianity and its churches.
That doesn't mean we should praise Christianity itself for being more enlightened.
Just like Islam, with its insane dogma and hatred of outsiders, deserves the credit for uniting the barbaric warring tribes of the Middle East in its first few hundred years; Islamic doctrine created a veneration of precision and beauty, united people as a brotherhood with core values, sought a caliphate and hence organized political power and gave direction to to the aimless, and so on. It had other pernicious elements which meant it could never reach Christianity's enlightenment, but you can clearly see the way in which a religion transformed a society. I doubt that would even be controversial. Yet say anything good about Christianity, or contrast it positively with the world's barbaric religions, and people have a fit. It's weird. tame_deuces should read some Enlightenment philosophers and see what they say about other cultures and peoples (such was my point to which you replied).
Did you read what I wrote ? Absolutely , but I suspect the nuance is lost if met with ill will. Each man incarnates within his nation, tribe, race, gender, clan, for good reason; that which will improve him into the future; hard to believe I know but each of us has incarnated into different cloaks, so to speak, in the past and will continue to do so in the future.
I didn't even answer you before because it's completely objectively obvious that the Western world is vastly superior to the Eastern world in cultural achievements. It is so obvious I don't see the need to explain, but we do live in an age where cultural relativism has become the norm, and most academic books, which I'm sure you like to read, are skewed to that polite fiction.
<snip>
<snip>
I guess you'll have to explain after all.
Yes, it's unquestionable that the flowering of protestant belief, justified religiously in its adherents by the direct words of Jesus, led to a flowering of ideas and a search for ultimate truth within and by one's own eyes, rather than have it handed down by an authority - an anarchism in thought which ultimately led to the Enlightenment. That's one pillar of the claim that Christianity was central - it contained an escape valve from dogma and an exhortation toward deeply individual truth-seeking that neither Islam nor Confucianism contained. That is the seed from which all grew.
Yes, I wrote as much earlier.
I think Christian ideals deserve the credit for the work ethic, the selflessness, the seeking after truth, and the development of very robust, healthy communities and institutions that formed the basis of the Europe's moral and intellectual advancement.
Just like Islam, with its insane dogma and hatred of outsiders, deserves the credit for uniting the barbaric warring tribes of the Middle East in its first few hundred years; Islamic doctrine created a veneration of precision and beauty, united people as a brotherhood with core values, sought a caliphate and hence organized political power and gave direction to to the aimless, and so on. It had other pernicious elements which meant it could never reach Christianity's enlightenment, but you can clearly see the way in which a religion transformed a society. I doubt that would even be controversial. Yet say anything good about Christianity, or contrast it positively with the world's barbaric religions, and people have a fit. It's weird. tame_deuces should read some Enlightenment philosophers and see what they say about other cultures and peoples (such was my point to which you replied).
An awful lot of dumb in this thread.
Of course Christianity was central to the Enlightenment. A large portion of it developed as a rebellion against -- church canon. That's a defining feature of the E. -- thought and learning that broke out of the monastery. The Enlightenment also took place within the church, bringing lots of changes. Complex.
Using the Enlightenment to slam Islam and Islamic slavery is a howler. The rediscovery of Greek thought came largely from examining -- Islamic scholarship. That is, the books and bodies of thought stored within Islam. Tracing the west to the Greeks but not Islam is like saying you are related to your grandfather but not your father. Well, maybe like you're related to you mom's cousins but not your dad's -- whatever.
Slavery is not the place to argue the superiority of Europe. The highest volume of enslavement in the whole world was the Atlantic basin. That's where the capitalism was that drove it. And some key Enlightenment figures, like John Locke, were investors in the slave trade. Household slavery of Islam is awful, but plantation slavery in the Americas was industrial scale so shut up. Enlightenment scientific reasoning is later adapted to justify a hierarchy of races, colonialism, and all sorts of horrors. Careful what you wish for -- Arab Enlightened capitalism would mean Algeria slaughtering France instead of vice versa, and West Africa depopulating Anglo Saxon towns.
Islam can give you both al Qaida and the Beirut nightclub scene, just as Christianity can give you both the KKK and Quaker abolitionists. Separating Christianity from Islam, rather than seeing them both as Mediterranean religions of the same root, is neo-Nazi crackpot fairy tales. Be sure to wear Viking horns and cite Thor in response.
Of course Christianity was central to the Enlightenment. A large portion of it developed as a rebellion against -- church canon. That's a defining feature of the E. -- thought and learning that broke out of the monastery. The Enlightenment also took place within the church, bringing lots of changes. Complex.
Using the Enlightenment to slam Islam and Islamic slavery is a howler. The rediscovery of Greek thought came largely from examining -- Islamic scholarship. That is, the books and bodies of thought stored within Islam. Tracing the west to the Greeks but not Islam is like saying you are related to your grandfather but not your father. Well, maybe like you're related to you mom's cousins but not your dad's -- whatever.
Slavery is not the place to argue the superiority of Europe. The highest volume of enslavement in the whole world was the Atlantic basin. That's where the capitalism was that drove it. And some key Enlightenment figures, like John Locke, were investors in the slave trade. Household slavery of Islam is awful, but plantation slavery in the Americas was industrial scale so shut up. Enlightenment scientific reasoning is later adapted to justify a hierarchy of races, colonialism, and all sorts of horrors. Careful what you wish for -- Arab Enlightened capitalism would mean Algeria slaughtering France instead of vice versa, and West Africa depopulating Anglo Saxon towns.
Islam can give you both al Qaida and the Beirut nightclub scene, just as Christianity can give you both the KKK and Quaker abolitionists. Separating Christianity from Islam, rather than seeing them both as Mediterranean religions of the same root, is neo-Nazi crackpot fairy tales. Be sure to wear Viking horns and cite Thor in response.
So because Islam captured a bunch of libraries as they tried to expand their caliphate in their golden years, we should thank Islam for the effects of Greek thought in the West? That's essentially what you're saying, and it's a howler.
Slavery is certainly the place to argue the moral superiority of Europe; most of Europe opposed it, and indeed, it was Europe and only Europe that stopped it both their own lands and in the Muslim world, where it was a religiously-endorsed part of life. The ignorance here is astounding on this issue. I know a liberal education makes US/Spanish slavery loom large in the mind, while it barely (if at all) mentions the far more widespread and barbaric and long-running and widely culturally accepted slavery in the Islamic world, but even so, you're long out of college; a learned man, as you are, should be expected to put off the prejudices off his education and learn about the world free from the politics of his professors.
This is an absolutely extraordinary statement for a learned man. Islam is as far from Christianity as Christianity is from Buddhism.
Anyway, the only reason I mentioned Islam - and talked about the elements in it antithetical to Enlightenment - is because the contrast shows up the elements of Christianity that did indeed lead to civilized society. Slavery, for example, could never ended under Islam except by force and conquest; it's part of the very fabric of that religion.
Slavery is certainly the place to argue the moral superiority of Europe; most of Europe opposed it, and indeed, it was Europe and only Europe that stopped it both their own lands and in the Muslim world, where it was a religiously-endorsed part of life. The ignorance here is astounding on this issue. I know a liberal education makes US/Spanish slavery loom large in the mind, while it barely (if at all) mentions the far more widespread and barbaric and long-running and widely culturally accepted slavery in the Islamic world, but even so, you're long out of college; a learned man, as you are, should be expected to put off the prejudices off his education and learn about the world free from the politics of his professors.
Separating Christianity from Islam, rather than seeing them both as Mediterranean religions of the same root, is neo-Nazi crackpot fairy tales. Be sure to wear Viking horns and cite Thor in response.
Anyway, the only reason I mentioned Islam - and talked about the elements in it antithetical to Enlightenment - is because the contrast shows up the elements of Christianity that did indeed lead to civilized society. Slavery, for example, could never ended under Islam except by force and conquest; it's part of the very fabric of that religion.
Feedback is used for internal purposes. LEARN MORE