EB and the West

[Urnamma]

Since the thread on Romans in EB became closed, I didn't have a chance to participate in it further. Having much respect for Shigawire I lamented his participation in it, at which point he demanded I define what Westernism is, and what qualities, in what way, would be classified in EB as anti-Western. Please note, this is not a diminution of the time and efforts put into the mod, which command from me nothing but the greatest respect and attention. This is an observation of EB since its earliest beginnings in 2004, since my ancient arguments with Psycho V and debates with Khelvan and Urnamma. I don't know what I could hope to achieve in this sub-forum, preaching to a highly hostile crowd, except that paullus wrote a highly intelligent post in the Romans thread, and I regretted not having a chance to respond to him; I still harbor hope of convincing Shigawire also.

It's actually rather interesting to be thought of as anti-western, considering that I am often considered the opposite in professional circles (at least as regards philosophy).

In response to what follows, I would like to hear more substantive responses than "we put the most time into the Romans, so your argument is moot". If you spit on the Roman values and achievements, and spend 17 months researching proper lists of cognomens, that is not in any way better than despising the very core of Nazi Germany, and devotedly researching the minutae staff of the Waffen SS and proper structure of the Hitlejungend. The responses in the Roman thread (celebrations on Cannae etc) show beyond any doubt that Roman culture and values hold a dismal place in the EB team, no matter what a more well-intentioned member of that team would want to believe. The only remaining question is why.

Granted, some things are over the top, and some posters can be as well. However, what is generally objected to is the theory that romans are somehow superior to everyone culturally and militarily. This is the opinion of many, and it is a rather unfortunate and dim one. I am no cultural relativist, but the Romans and Greeks do not need 95% of all things attributed to them, their cultural achievements stand out enough.

Westernism, briefly, constitutes a set of characteristics, some which are merely normative, and some of which are qualitative; namely, some Western qualities are simply Western heritage without a judgment of better or worse, and others are characteristics of quality you can use to determine worth in relation to other nations.

I am not quite sure why it has to be an -ism, but I digress.

I'll stick to the ancient times, since that is more appropriate to our debate. The following characteristics define the ancient (classical) west --

Alright.

in literature:
-formalized philosophy
-formalized oratory
-formalized grammar
-formalized architecture
-formalized algebra and geometry
-formalized engineering
-formalized medicine

Grammar should not be up there, as it is a unique characteristic to every formal language. Semites had formalized grammar long before Romans or Greeks. Note that these languages based their alphabet on the Phoenician.

I suppose the Architectural styles of the Near East and Egypt (formalized and updated for thousands of years) are not formal enough for you?

Medicine, likewise, could more accurately be considered a Greek/Phoenician development, as each built off the achievements of the other.

in art:
-fully formed ideal of man
-fully formed sculptural technique

Wrong again on the second. Note that early Greek styles were borrowed from the established Egyptian technique.

in government:
-fully formed free government
-a fully developed bureaucracy and compendious administration
-national hatred for self-submission
-distrust and constant replacement of politicians
-politicians, people administering by choice and subject to check

The first is certainly untrue, and begs the question 'what is free government?' Is it a government in which 51% can vote themselves the property and liberty of the other 49%? A national hatred of self-submission existed among Celts too.

in philosophy:
-fully formed notion of virtue
-fully formed view of reason and emotion
-fully formed view of pleasure
-fully formed view of personal happiness
-fully formed guide to life

No real argument here, as I am fond of saying: 'the Greeks invented rational thought'.

Here's what's not a qualitative difference of the ancient West: music. If you've ever heard reproductions of ancient music, they sound hardly different from oriental music or from egyptian music, or semitic music. So that music is not specifically Western; nor is it anti-Western; it's just music simply, not a degree of comparison in those times and in that state of development. It is completely different and primitive compared to the Western music, as brought to bear by J.S. Bach in 1600s. Similarly ancient painting; it is only in some parts fully Western, and mainly only proto-Western, Pompeii and Apelles included; Western painting only first springs in full form with the perspective and vanishing point of Donatello and Masaccio.

Ok... Have you ever seen frescoes and funerary portraits?

Now, a note about non-classical societies in the West: race does not determine culture. Just because people lived in the same area where a typically Western culture later flourished, does not mean they themselves were Western or had qualities of that kind.

I don't think anyone has said this.

Celtic societies, were not Western. Just like Mycenean Greeks were not Western. They did not possess anywhere near the number of qualities for comparison (being a more primitive society), and the qualities they did possess were not Western, but otherwise. At best, you could say that some Celtic properties were proto-Western, whether that be from constant interchange with Romans/Greeks, or from some internal driving force for change, it doesn't matter. Germanic societies were plainly non Western. In fact, Germanic societies were anti-Western, which is shown in what happens to Western qualities when Germanics take over -- those qualities have no value, are quickly destroyed or forgotten.

Which is why the legal systems of the United States and Great Britain (among others) are based on Germanic laws?

The pro-Celtic movement and pro-Germanic movements that EB is so proud and so full of are the result of the 19th century racist movements that were no longer satisfied with the Western culture in the West. Prior to the 19th century, no one would even think of having Celtic pride. Classical (western) heritage was the only thing that mattered. Celtic and Germanic myths were swiftly overturned and destroyed by the Classical Prometheus and Jupiter. As late as 1950s, a character in a movie without even thinking it exclaimed, "By Jove! I don't know what you mean!" Romans, even not Greeks, were the profound teachers of the West prior to the 19th century. Seneca, not Plato, was judged by Joseph Addison as the greater philosopher, whatever you may think of that. But still, Greeks were highly respected, and Romans revered beyond measure; all other peoples in Western lands were despised and looked down on; descendants of Celtic people despised Celtic culture. Now the race is on to overturn this value hierarchy, to bring racial qualities above cultural qualities, under the banner of cynicism and skepticism. And EB is in many ways the herald, and on the forefront of that.

This is asinine to me. We're not pro-germanic, we're pro-'not making them into stereotypical slathering cavemen'. Note that being 'proud' of celtic culture was a good way to get yourself killed during the Norman and English rule in Ireland.

Being obsessed with everything western is interesting, and largely missing the point. One cannot be Aristotelean and Platonic at the same time (Despite Boethius' attempt). You've ignored the Judaic and Christian elements in Western culture as well, which I find rather fascinating. I think that perhaps we ought to discuss singular facets of what makes the Romans and Greeks so superior to everyone else in every way, rather than painting with broad brush strokes. I'm willing to discuss it with you, if we keep it civil.