The Trouble With Our West Today

In my view the main trouble of the West today does not lie in any economic, social or political complications. Any which may arise do so as side effects of the fundamental issue at hand. This is that the West has developed so far into liberalism and individualism, the absolute disregard of all convention and everything traditional or sacred, that it has become a society based on the absence of anything. In other words the West is simply a hollow society without a basis or living culture. In all civilisations throughout the world the people have their traditions. This can be seen in China, the Middle East, Africa, anywhere on this earth. From a young age the children are raised in a certain way, faith is upheld and there exist in these places very real cultures which are dynamic and thriving.

In our civilisation we have disregarded tradition to such an extent that we have lost our soul. We are modern, we are technical, sophisticated, progressive and separate from the oriental "other". Yet at the heart of it there is no driving or dynamic big idea, it is all simply material existence and the perpetuation of this way of living. What do we raise our children on, what religious faith are they raised in? Why is it that Westerners admire other cultures? Could it be that we have watered down our own? We have become a people without base. This cannot be sustained.

Furthermore because of colonialism and imperialism and that the West has become the world leader, it has placed itself as the centre of the global paradigm. Hence it is unable to conceive of itself outside of this and spirals into the implosion of this world view and world system as the latter crushes the one who conceived it. It has made itself the middle of the liberal world view, the liberal capitalism emptiness and society based on nothing. Therefore the West today has dissolved itself, in a sense become culturally invisible. The Chinese have their culture, as do the Indians and others, but our culture has become unoticable. We look at these other peoples and envy them because they are the "other" in the face of the globalised Western popular culture which has come to characterise us.

In my view it is important for the West to revive itself and again base itself on real culture, to develop and revive its lost traditional culture. It must shift away from liberalism and collapse the system and world paradigm it has created, so as to make its culture again visible to itself and to the wider world. Rather than being at the middle of the global political, economic and social system it must shift to the periphery and away from the liberal post-modernist centre so as to re-assemble its cultural life. If the West is able to become one with the "other", to shift away from its liberalism and paradigm which places it at the centre of world affairs, one can see that it will no longer be a stagnant and non-living society or culture.

Before replying in more detail, what do you determine as "the west" ?

What applies in America does not apply in France or Belgium for example. I was raised in Scandinavia and we certainly cultivate traditions and virtues that can be recognized across the population as desirable and "traditional" : Civil responsibility, courtesy and modesty, generosity, tolerance of others etc.
We pride ourselves on what is uniquely "danish".

I get the feeling that by "tradition" you mean "religion" which is another discussion altogether. But in that case, in America, "tradition" is alive and well, though growing more and more fanatic and hostile to alternatives. This is something we should progress beyond, if we are to build any semblance of a socialist world. Unity and coherence.

I strongly disagree with every single word.

Quote:

This is that the West has developed so far into liberalism and individualism, the absolute disregard of all convention and everything traditional or sacred, that it has become a society based on the absence of anything. In other words the West is simply a hollow society without a basis or living culture.

Yes. Exactly. And this is a good thing. We disregard oppressive "conventions" and "traditions" such as homophobia, sexism and religion. Marx writes in the Manifesto that the bourgeoisie has destroyed everything that was once "sacred" wherever it has come to power, and this is what makes bourgeois society so incredibly awesome compared to everything that has existed before. Marriage? Screw it! Monarchy? Screw it! In the imperialist bourgeois countries, people have, for the first time ever since we've started to exist as a species, begun to think for themselves and they have thereby emancipated themselves from the brainwashing that the notions of absolute morality and religion forced upon them before. Rationality is becoming our core value, and I for one, am incredibly proud to be living in a time where "sapere aude" is finally starting to be taken seriously by a steadily growing part of the population.

The climax of this development - the emancipation of mankind - will be communism. The criticism of everything we were once taught to believe will turn into the material criticism even of everything the bourgeoisie has taught us to believe - the "pursuit of happiness", private property and similar crap.

Quote:

In all civilizations throughout the world the people have their traditions. This can be seen in China, the Middle East, Africa, anywhere on this earth. From a young age the children are raised in a certain way, faith is upheld and there exist in these places very real cultures which are dynamic and thriving.

Yup, and all these civilizations are backwards, oppressive, and deserving of extinction. The fact that faith is upheld there leads to genital mutilation, stonings, contempt of rationality and the sciences and a generally anti-emancipatory societal climate. We are talking about societies where women are treated as assets, homosexuality is regarded as sin and people are scared into obeying their religious leaders with threats of eternal damnation. Screw these "civilizations" - honestly they don't even deserve to be called "civilizations" because civilization has evolved beyond this.

By the way I have no idea why you're including China. People are pretty atheistic there, and as far as I understand, even the ancestor worship thing is more like folklore than anything else.

Quote:

In our civilisation we have disregarded tradition to such an extent that we have lost our soul.

We've never had a soul, we've merely lost the illusion of having one.

Quote:

We are modern, we are technical, sophisticated, progressive and separate from the oriental "other". Yet at the heart of it there is no driving or dynamic big idea

The dynamic big idea of bourgeois society is the pursuit of happiness. Works pretty well if you ask me, everyone has bought it. And tbh it works better than prayers.

Quote:

it is all simply material existence and the perpetuation of this way of living.

Everything constantly changes. I don't think there's anybody who thinks otherwise, at least not after having completed a basic history course.

Quote:

What do we raise our children on, what religious faith are they aised in?

Hopefully none? One of the happiest, most fulfilled people I know was raised atheist - which makes perfect sense.

Quote:

Why is it that Westerners admire other cultures?

Because we're stupid. Also nobody I know of really admires other cultures... maybe East Asian culture, but hey, you know what? They're atheist, and the traditions they've preserved and that Westerners care about (mainly martial arts, philosophy and meditation) are really pretty good. But you seem to be overlooking the fact that we've preserved Christmas as well. There you have your tradition.

Quote:

Could it be that we have watered down our own? We have become a people without base. This cannot be sustained.

Bullshit. Yes, we've rid ourselves of all absolute values, and now we're hovering in midair. But isn't flying much better than being subject to gravity?

Also this.

Quote:

We look at these other peoples and envy them because they are the "other" in the face of the globalised Western popular culture which has come to characterise us.

Yeah, I'm sure every Western woman envies her Islamic counterparts for forced marriages.... not. Actually the US is right when it keeps saying that these people hate freedom, because they do. That's not to say that there's a huge amount of freedom in the West - of course there isn't - but it's better than every other place in the world. Better by several orders of magnitude. The mere fact that we're discussing this - over the internet, in our spare time, on our personal computers, in well-heated rooms - is proof of this.

Quote:

In my view it is important for the West to revive itself and again base itself on real culture, to develop and revive its lost traditional culture.

Yay, let's revive the biggest mafia ever - the Catholic Church! No way.

Quote:

It must shift away from liberalism and collapse the system and world paradigm it has created, so as to make its culture again visible to itself and to the wider world.

The entire world knows McDonald's, Coca-Cola, and Facebook.

Quote:

If the West is able to become one with the "other", to shift away from its liberalism and paradigm which places it at the centre of world affairs, one can see that it will no longer be a stagnant and non-living society or culture.

There is more life in NYC than anywhere else, I'm tempted to guess...

Quote:

Yup, and all these civilizations are backwards, oppressive, and deserving of extinction.

How arrogant, how can you say that Africa, China, and the Middle-East are "deserving of extinction"? Why shouldn't the West die? Would you have called for Russia's extinction 100 years ago, after all, it was the country that upheld Absolute Monarchy and Theocracy. These civilisations will move beyond their traditions eventually, as the backwards conditions (like poverty and neo-colonialism) that cause them, will disappear.

Misuzu wrote:

How arrogant, how can you say that Africa, China, and the Middle-East are "deserving of extinction"? Why shouldn't the West die? Would you have called for Russia's extinction 100 years ago, after all, it was the country that upheld Absolute Monarchy and Theocracy. These civilisations will move beyond their traditions eventually, as the backwards conditions (like poverty and neo-colonialism) that cause them, will disappear.

lol, we're not even disagreeing. The Russian Tsarist culture did go extinct to be replaced by Soviet culture, and that was a good thing. Maybe "extinction" was the wrong word... would "abolishment" be better?

Culture is nothing more than a consequence of economic realities and the relations of production; as economic conditions of a society change, so does its culture, invariably. The individualism and self-centeredness of the "West" is a culture unto itself, even if the big idea behind it (Ayn Rand's concept of the pursuit of happiness, as Mabool explained) has a different meaning for each person (individual or corporation) and will always cause clashes between people.

It is interesting to note that during the heyday of the British Empire, it was the liberals of British society that encouraged and fostered strong ties to the most conservative elements of the colonial societies. This embracing of exotic cultures and traditions was not a function of curiosity or longing for culture (with perhaps individual exceptions) but rather a deliberate attempt at exploitation, using backwards traditions to keep societies in check.

So many issues, where to begin?

What is the West? You're positing it as a homogenous entity that acts and thinks in unison.
What is civilization? Everyone considers themselves to be "civilized". Nobody considers themselves to be "barbarians".
What are traditions? Most traditions are invented by the ruling class and then impressed upon society as an adhesive.

Quote:

In my view the main trouble of the West today does not lie in any economic, social or political complications. Any which may arise do so as side effects of the fundamental issue at hand. This is that the West has developed so far into liberalism and individualism, the absolute disregard of all convention and everything traditional or sacred, that it has become a society based on the absence of anything.

How is this a problem? You're making out as if this is a bad thing. I mean, "sacred?" This is just metaphysics!

Quote:

This can be seen in China, the Middle East, Africa, anywhere on this earth. From a young age the children are raised in a certain way, faith is upheld and there exist in these places very real cultures which are dynamic and thriving.

What on earth is a thriving and dynamic culture? From my experience in China many of the people seem to focus on Western styles and cultural products (music, fashion, pop culture etc). Faith is upheld? This is what Republican presidential candidates want!

Quote:

In our civilisation we have disregarded tradition to such an extent that we have lost our soul.

Oh no! I've lost my soul! Oh wait, it's just metaphysics, no need to worry.

Quote:

We are modern, we are technical, sophisticated, progressive and separate from the oriental "other".

I assume this is your attempt at applying Orientalism? Why then do you lump "China" and the "Chinese culture" together as seemingly homogenous concepts?

Quote:

Yet at the heart of it there is no driving or dynamic big idea

What big idea is the rest of the world raised on?

Quote:

What do we raise our children on, what religious faith are they raised in?

Nothing, hopefully.

Quote:

Why is it that Westerners admire other cultures?

Again, many non-Western cultures greatly admire many aspects of Western culture.

Quote:

Could it be that we have watered down our own? We have become a people without base. This cannot be sustained.

This is stuff you find on far-right websites. How have we watered down our culture? Is it all the immigrants we've let in?

Quote:

The Chinese have their culture, as do the Indians and others

This is just Orientalism.

Quote:

We look at these other peoples and envy them because they are the "other" in the face of the globalised Western popular culture which has come to characterise us.

No, people in the developing world often envy us for a myriad of reasons (including cultural but also socioeconomic). Also, to what extent do you envy people who live in Nigerian slums?

Quote:

In my view it is important for the West to revive itself and again base itself on real culture, to develop and revive its lost traditional culture.

What is "real culture?" What is "our" "traditional culture?"


Fundamentally however, I don't see how anything you propose helps achieve a socialist revolution.

Quote:

lol, we're not even disagreeing. The Russian Tsarist culture did go extinct to be replaced by Soviet culture, and that was a good thing. Maybe "extinction" was the wrong word... would "abolishment" be better?

I guess I misinterpreted. When I think of the word "Civilisation", I think of the sum of the culture and history of the people who reside in that place, for example, even though the Chinese Dynasties, Chinese Republic, and People's Republic of China were several different epochs in history, they are all part of the Chinese Civilisation.

Quote:

Before replying in more detail, what do you determine as "the west" ?

Like Huntington and others my definition of the West is more or less historic Catholic and Protestant Europe, with some variations depending on cultural and historical differences in particular cases. To me the West includes most of west Europe, parts of the east and the Americas. I also include other non-Western but still Westernised areas as being aligned and partially constituent of the West but not fully. Among such places would be Japan etc. More or less the political, cultural and economic bloc which constitutes Europe, America and their allies.

Quote:

What applies in America does not apply in France or Belgium for example. I was raised in Scandinavia and we certainly cultivate traditions and virtues that can be recognized across the population as desirable and "traditional" : Civil responsibility, courtesy and modesty, generosity, tolerance of others etc.
We pride ourselves on what is uniquely "danish".

Ever since the end of WWII there has been a general homogenisation of the West, in my view. There are still significant differences between countries and between Europe and America, however there has certainly been an adoption of many common values and styles of living.

Quote:

I get the feeling that by "tradition" you mean "religion" which is another discussion altogether. But in that case, in America, "tradition" is alive and well, though growing more and more fanatic and hostile to alternatives. This is something we should progress beyond, if we are to build any semblance of a socialist world. Unity and coherence.

'

Not only religion but simply cultural traditions, such as the old clothes, sword culture, old style architecture. Of course also old values, warrior tradition, old customs etc.

Quote:

Yes. Exactly. And this is a good thing. We disregard oppressive "conventions" and "traditions" such as homophobia, sexism and religion. Marx writes in the Manifesto that the bourgeoisie has destroyed everything that was once "sacred" wherever it has come to power, and this is what makes bourgeois society so incredibly awesome compared to everything that has existed before. Marriage? Screw it! Monarchy? Screw it!

Why do you believe that all conventions and traditions are "oppressive"? You do not feel that the extreme permissiveness is in a sense oppressive? Tell me, why should we "screw" marriage? Why must we disregard religion? Why must everything in the West be deconstructed and destroyed? In the USSR they were socially conservative people. Why do you want to destroy the family and old institutions?

Quote:

In the imperialist bourgeois countries, people have, for the first time ever since we've started to exist as a species, begun to think for themselves and they have thereby emancipated themselves from the brainwashing that the notions of absolute morality and religion forced upon them before. Rationality is becoming our core value, and I for one, am incredibly proud to be living in a time where "sapere aude" is finally starting to be taken seriously by a steadily growing part of the population.

How have they emancipated themselves from anything? Life still goes on, it is nothing but nine to five working days and being held captive by peer pressure. You think that there are no more conventions? The traditional ones have gone but new ones have replaced them. Everyone has to dress a certain way or look a certain way, speak with certain types of slang, listen to the right sort of music. People are still brainwashed, except instead of believing in the Gospel they now believe in postmodernism and neo-liberalism.

There is nothing wrong with rationality, yet what if rationality leads one to be conservative?

Quote:

The climax of this development - the emancipation of mankind - will be communism. The criticism of everything we were once taught to believe will turn into the material criticism even of everything the bourgeoisie has taught us to believe - the "pursuit of happiness", private property and similar crap.

And where is the revolution in the West?

Quote:

Yup, and all these civilizations are backwards, oppressive, and deserving of extinction. The fact that faith is upheld there leads to genital mutilation, stonings, contempt of rationality and the sciences and a generally anti-emancipatory societal climate. We are talking about societies where women are treated as assets, homosexuality is regarded as sin and people are scared into obeying their religious leaders with threats of eternal damnation. Screw these "civilizations" - honestly they don't even deserve to be called "civilizations" because civilization has evolved beyond this.

It is possible to avoid both extremes. Why must we be ultra-liberal and ultra-individualistic? Why can we not be moderately socially conservative and respect women as well? The West after WWII was something like this, especially in Europe. Why must we be so extremely liberal to the point of craziness?

Quote:

By the way I have no idea why you're including China. People are pretty atheistic there, and as far as I understand, even the ancestor worship thing is more like folklore than anything else.

They still have their traditions and are a conservative society compared to ours.

Quote:

We've never had a soul, we've merely lost the illusion of having one.

Yes of course, we never had a soul. No one has a soul. We are all just a large nihilistic mass. Nature and society develop through dialectical contradictions and we should be communists only because it is inevitable...

Quote:

Hopefully none? One of the happiest, most fulfilled people I know was raised atheist - which makes perfect sense.

And I know many happy fulfilled religious people.

Quote:

Because we're stupid. Also nobody I know of really admires other cultures... maybe East Asian culture, but hey, you know what? They're atheist, and the traditions they've preserved and that Westerners care about (mainly martial arts, philosophy and meditation) are really pretty good. But you seem to be overlooking the fact that we've preserved Christmas as well. There you have your tradition.

So where are our martial arts? The difference is that they are quite conservative, whereas we have lost touch. Christmas today is not even especially religious is it?

Quote:

Bullshit. Yes, we've rid ourselves of all absolute values, and now we're hovering in midair. But isn't flying much better than being subject to gravity?

Better to be on earth than fly off into the lonely depths space.

Quote:

Yeah, I'm sure every Western woman envies her Islamic counterparts for forced marriages.... not. Actually the US is right when it keeps saying that these people hate freedom, because they do. That's not to say that there's a huge amount of freedom in the West - of course there isn't - but it's better than every other place in the world. Better by several orders of magnitude. The mere fact that we're discussing this - over the internet, in our spare time, on our personal computers, in well-heated rooms - is proof of this.

You take the most extreme example again. Freedom is not the issue either.

Quote:

Yay, let's revive the biggest mafia ever - the Catholic Church! No way.

There are other traditions and aspects of Western culture which are not based solely on Catholicism or the Greek-Roman tradition.

Quote:

The entire world knows McDonald's, Coca-Cola, and Facebook.

These are not aspects of culture, they are simply popular culture, consumerism.

Quote:

There is more life in NYC than anywhere else, I'm tempted to guess...

I would not know about that but from what I hear it is a horrible place full of crime and vice.

Quote:

lol, we're not even disagreeing. The Russian Tsarist culture did go extinct to be replaced by Soviet culture, and that was a good thing. Maybe "extinction" was the wrong word... would "abolishment" be better?

The Russian culture was not replaced, Soviet culture developed on the basis of Russian culture. They did not suddenly lose all of their traditions just because they now were the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Furthermore, Soviet society was quite conservative. Initially the Bolsheviks tried to implement cultural Marxism there but they did not succeed. Stalin even brought back the Orthodox Church at one point during the war. You see?

Quote:

Culture is nothing more than a consequence of economic realities and the relations of production; as economic conditions of a society change, so does its culture, invariably. The individualism and self-centeredness of the "West" is a culture unto itself, even if the big idea behind it (Ayn Rand's concept of the pursuit of happiness, as Mabool explained) has a different meaning for each person (individual or corporation) and will always cause clashes between people.

I agree that culture does change based on economic conditions, to some extent. However it can also be changed by other factors such as popular movements, the media etc. Yes the individualism and self-centeredness of the West is a culture unto itself, but this is a development of history. It was not always like this and was even less so fifty years ago.

Quote:

It is interesting to note that during the heyday of the British Empire, it was the liberals of British society that encouraged and fostered strong ties to the most conservative elements of the colonial societies. This embracing of exotic cultures and traditions was not a function of curiosity or longing for culture (with perhaps individual exceptions) but rather a deliberate attempt at exploitation, using backwards traditions to keep societies in check.

This is irrelavent to the situation of Western society today.

Quote:

What is the West? You're positing it as a homogenous entity that acts and thinks in unison.
What is civilization? Everyone considers themselves to be "civilized". Nobody considers themselves to be "barbarians".

See above please.

Quote:

What are traditions? Most traditions are invented by the ruling class and then impressed upon society as an adhesive.

This is not true. Traditions develop among the society, they are not always introduced by the ruling class. Where is your basis for such a statement? Do you mean to say that taking your hat off indoors, holding doors open or certain elements of politeness are all imposed by the ruling class? Even in socialist countries there are still traditions.

Quote:

How is this a problem? You're making out as if this is a bad thing. I mean, "sacred?" This is just metaphysics!

Then do please tell me what we have to hold dear. If nothing is scared, if it is all metaphysics, then just what are we to live for? This is a problem in that we do not have conventions to keep our society together.

Quote:

What on earth is a thriving and dynamic culture? From my experience in China many of the people seem to focus on Western styles and cultural products (music, fashion, pop culture etc). Faith is upheld? This is what Republican presidential candidates want!

A thriving dynamic culture is one which has long established traditions and strong social values, such as family, respect of elders. China is still China even though many people there may like some things from the West. Having pop music and fashion does not change their thousand and a half year history or suddenly erase their culture.

What is wrong if faith is upheld? Why is it so evil to be religious or preserve religion? Also, the Republicans are hardly the most religious of people.

Quote:

I assume this is your attempt at applying Orientalism? Why then do you lump "China" and the "Chinese culture" together as seemingly homogenous concepts?

I was not trying to apply orientalism. I was saying how we have separated ourselves from the rest of humanity.

Quote:

What big idea is the rest of the world raised on?

They are not based on any big idea, but they have their traditions and religoius beliefs.

Quote:

This is stuff you find on far-right websites. How have we watered down our culture? Is it all the immigrants we've let in?

Please do not put words in my mouth. I never said anything about immigrants. I am talking about what the West has done to itself. I mean the watering down of tradition and the replacement of it with looseness, consumerism and individualism.

Quote:

This is just Orientalism.

These societies are far more cohesive than Western ones. In China the family is far stronger than in the UK.

Quote:

No, people in the developing world often envy us for a myriad of reasons (including cultural but also socioeconomic). Also, to what extent do you envy people who live in Nigerian slums?

Economic development is not the issue, you can have any culture but still be well off.

Quote:

What is "real culture?" What is "our" "traditional culture?"

By asking this you are more or less saying that we do not have a culture. Our traditional culture are the old values we have lost, in other words, conservatism and tradition.

Quote:

Fundamentally however, I don't see how anything you propose helps achieve a socialist revolution.

I do not see how there can be a socialist revolution in the contemporary West unless their is a massive and absolutely colossal fall in living standards.

Quote:

Why do you believe that all conventions and traditions are "oppressive"?

Tell me some that aren't.

Quote:

You do not feel that the extreme permissiveness is in a sense oppressive?

No, why is it oppressive to be permissive? That doesn't make any sense.

Quote:

Why must we disregard religion?

The metaphysical claims of religion are untrue. Also, to quote Christopher Hitchens: "I think it'd be rather awful if it was true ... you would never have a waking or sleeping moment where you weren't being watched, and controlled, and supervised by some celestial entity from conception until, well, not even until your death because it's only after death when the real fun begins, isn't it?"

Religious people are slaves, and proud of their chains. How is this not oppressive?

Quote:

In the USSR they were socially conservative people.

Regrettably, yes.

Quote:

Why do you want to destroy the family and old institutions?

I do not "want to destroy the family". The family is being abolished because the people don't want it anymore. And that's a good thing because the family is one of the main reasons for psychological damage. Ever heard of Freud? Why do you want to keep the family?

Quote:

How have they emancipated themselves from anything?

Absolute morality and religion. I said this.

Quote:

Life still goes on, it is nothing but nine to five working days and being held captive by peer pressure.

No, it's also fun. If you don't do anything at night and on weekends, fine, but rest assured that the majority of people do. Life was considerably less fun before capitalism came and brought us the entertainment industry, though. In the middle ages, life was indeed nothing but work. And how can you possibly criticize individualism and peer pressure at the same time? Are you not noticing that "traditions" and "values" and, indeed, religion are the worst forms of peer pressure?

Quote:

You think that there are no more conventions? The traditional ones have gone but new ones have replaced them. Everyone has to dress a certain way or look a certain way, speak with certain types of slang, listen to the right sort of music.

It's called fashion and it has always existed. If anything, the severity of these kinds of "pressures" has immensely decreased. There has never been such a huge variation in dress styles, slangs, and music as today. I seriously don't see what your problem is. Can you show me a single society at any point in time where there was more freedom of fashion, slang and music than in the Western world of today? In the Middle Ages you'd have been burned at the stake for listening to dubstep.

Quote:

People are still brainwashed, except instead of believing in the Gospel they now believe in postmodernism and neo-liberalism.

At least you realize that the Gospel is a form of brainwashing. Also, no. Neo-liberalism is an economic policy. Most people don't even care about economic policies because they're to busy pursuing their happiness, as they've been brainwashed to do. Look, I'd be the last to deny that people are alienated under capitalism. What I've been trying to say is that the amount of alienation has decreased. Feudal peasants were a lot more detatched from reality than anybody who lives in Europe today.

Quote:

There is nothing wrong with rationality, yet what if rationality leads one to be conservative?

But it doesn't. Conservatism is based on idealism which is by definition irrational.

Quote:

And where is the revolution in the West?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_are_the_99%25

Quote:

Why must we be ultra-liberal and ultra-individualistic?

Because we are! Nobody "proposes" that people be individualistic, they just are! It's you who should explain why we shouldn't. Also last time I checked you complained about peer pressure, so here's your answer nonetheless: We're individualistic because peer pressure sucks. You agree, right?

Quote:

Why can we not be moderately socially conservative and respect women as well?

Because even now women have not gained equality yet. So we should rather go even further. Luckily, this is exactly what's happening. I'm eagerly looking forward to the extinction of the stay-at-home mom. If that means the utter and complete abolition of the family, all the better!

Again, why should we conserve anything from the past? The past sucked, that's why we changed it.

Quote:

The West after WWII was something like this, especially in Europe.

No, the West after WWII was certainly not respectful of women. If women had been happy at that time, would the sexual revolution have happened?

Quote:

They still have their traditions and are a conservative society compared to ours.

And how does this make them better than us?

Quote:

Yes of course, we never had a soul. No one has a soul. We are all just a large nihilistic mass.

Well, no, we'd be a nihilistic mass if we were all nihilists, and I'm sure you're not a nihilist, so no. But yeah, nobody has a soul. What reason is there to assume the existence of a soul?

Quote:

Nature and society develop through dialectical contradictions and we should be communists only because it is inevitable...

No, we should be communists because we want communism. ff you don't want communism (and I''m sure you don't), of course you shouldn't be a communist.

Quote:

And I know many happy fulfilled religious people.

Me too. Only, they're either hypocrites who suffer immensely below the surface, or they're so detatched from reality that they'd deserve a psychiatric diagnosis if it weren't for the undeserved tolerance that religion still gets from society.

And tbh most religious people I know are extremely unhappy. Of course you could still refer to the vast majority of "religious" people - those that have a foggy idea of some higher power, but still do whatever they want in their real lives. These people are obviously still reasonably happy, but I'm sure we both agree that they're not truly religious.

Quote:

So where are our martial arts? The difference is that they are quite conservative, whereas we have lost touch. Christmas today is not even especially religious is it?

I dunno, it's always been very religious for me. But for most people it isn't, and I'm sure that makes it much nicer.

Quote:

Better to be on earth than fly off into the lonely depths space.

I dunno, I've always wanted to be able to fly like superman.

Quote:

You take the most extreme example again. Freedom is not the issue either.

But that's the point of the entire discussion, isn't it? I love the freedom that capitalism gives me, and you want to take it away from me.

(Clarification: Of course I'd also love for that freedom to be vastly increased, as in, communism. Don't mistake me for a liberal only because I have to defend captialism against feudalism here. It's nice to be doing this for a change, though.)

Quote:

There are other traditions and aspects of Western culture which are not based solely on Catholicism or the Greek-Roman tradition.

No. Do you mean Celtic or Germanic traditions? Nobody even remembers these.

Quote:

These are not aspects of culture, they are simply popular culture, consumerism.

How is "popular culture" not "culture"? Culture isn't only what you like.

Quote:

I would not know about that but from what I hear it is a horrible place full of crime and vice.

Yay, vice! <3

Also, I'm sure there's more crime in Africa, South America and Asia.

Quote:

Initially the Bolsheviks tried to implement cultural Marxism there but they did not succeed. Stalin even brought back the Orthodox Church at one point during the war. You see?

Yes, Stalin was a moron who ruined everything, and his social conservatism was one of his worst mistakes. There's a reason the USSR collapsed, you know. If they'd retained "cultural Marxism" I'm sure things would have developed entirely differently, and much more positively.

Political Interest wrote:

In my view the main trouble of the West today does not lie in any economic, social or political complications. Any which may arise do so as side effects of the fundamental issue at hand.

So your rationale is that having no traditions has led us to being unscrupulous? I fear you're treading into romance.

Political Interest wrote:

This is that the West has developed so far into liberalism and individualism, the absolute disregard of all convention and everything traditional or sacred, that it has become a society based on the absence of anything.

Tradition evolves. If you don't get on board the world will leave you behind. We can't go back anymore than they could un-eat that apple.

Political Interest wrote:

From a young age the children are raised in a certain way, faith is upheld and there exist in these places very real cultures which are dynamic and thriving.

Upholding faith is a dangerous idea. Firstly, Allah chooses to bring the light to your eyes. Secondly, attempting to uphold faith necessarily backfires for many people as your feeling for God is necessarily different than their own. Thirdly, it most often leads to dogmatism and "mob-faith". I think any interference with faith is a very bad sin.

Now to the idea that this is what has led to dynamic and "thriving" cultures. I can't see this connection as most of the modern men from these cultures are becoming ever more similar to us. A certain part of this is of course that we're the world's center (leading nations anyways) so emulation is definitely at play but much of it is a growth beyond rigid, and chaffing, aspects of their culture. It would be preferable if they could develop their culture independently I think, but that's been impossible for millenia.

Political Interest wrote:

In our civilisation we have disregarded tradition to such an extent that we have lost our soul.

Traditions are man-made and were not given to us by god. He worked without our cultures and languages, not the other way around.

Political Interest wrote:

The Chinese have their culture, as do the Indians and others, but our culture has become unoticable. We look at these other peoples and envy them because they are the "other" in the face of the globalised Western popular culture which has come to characterise us.

My Romanticization-Sense is tingling.

Political Interest wrote:

In my view it is important for the West to revive itself and again base itself on real culture

I have to ask what you mean by real in this sense.

Political Interest wrote:

Rather than being at the middle of the global political, economic and social system it must shift to the periphery and away from the liberal post-modernist centre so as to re-assemble its cultural life.

We're the center of the world because most of the capital is centralized here. Ignoring economic realities is only going to lead you to as a fallacious premise as asserting their absolute primacy will.

Mabool wrote:

We've never had a soul, we've merely lost the illusion of having one.

You're no longer a Christian but you still cling to their false dichotomy between being alive and having a soul. Soul is just an old timey term for things like electrical patterns and synaptic response. It's always important when looking at religion to remember it was the pre-cursor to science.

Mabool wrote:

Hopefully none? One of the happiest, most fulfilled people I know was raised atheist - which makes perfect sense.

C'mon Booly I know you're better than this. Being happy or fulfilled has little to do faith. To me it's strange to believe in God to get fulfillment out of it. Shit it doesn't even make sense. Unless it's a key to your emotional development.

Quote:

You're no longer a Christian but you still cling to their false dichotomy between being alive and having a soul.

I don't even know what this dichotomy is supposed to be. To a Christian, having a soul and being alive are pretty much the same thing. This is the opposite of a dichotomy.

Quote:

Soul is just an old timey term for things like electrical patterns and synaptic response. It's always important when looking at religion to remember it was the pre-cursor to science.

Again you're just redefining words so they make sense. Commonly, however, a soul is understood to be "the incorporeal essence of a person or living thing or object", for which "there is no scientific evidence" (Wikipedia). And we both know that this is what PI means.

Quote:

C'mon Booly I know you're better than this. Being happy or fulfilled has little to do faith.

Bullshit. Being afraid of hell and believing that you're an unworthy sinner tends to make you unhappy. Forcing yourself to "love" the tyrant who sends you there tends to cause severe cognitive dissonance. Repressing all kinds of natural urges because they're termed sins basically eliminates the possibility of fulfillment.

(I know what you're going to say: This is not how faith works for you. Fine. This is how faith works for the common follower of an Abrahamic religion though.)

Quote:

To me it's strange to believe in God to get fulfillment out of it. Shit it doesn't even make sense. Unless it's a key to your emotional development.

Which it is if you're raised in a faith. Knowing about hell before knowing about evolution is pretty dangerous for anybody's emotional development if you ask me.

Mabool wrote:

I don't even know what this dichotomy is supposed to be. To a Christian, having a soul and being alive are pretty much the same thing. This is the opposite of a dichotomy.

If you accept that the soul is life itself then why do you say we never had a soul/life? Also you're wrong. Most christians cling to this, idiotic, dichotomy between a non-material soul and a material life.

Mabool wrote:

Again you're just redefining words so they make sense. Commonly, however, a soul is understood to be "the incorporeal essence of a person or living thing or object", for which "there is no scientific evidence" (Wikipedia). And we both know that this is what PI means.

That PI uses an inaccurate and foolish interpretation of the soul (sorry PI) doesn't make a shitty argument against it any more valid. There is plenty of scientific evidence for what the soul was meant to represent, ie being alive, but yes there isn't any for the overly dogmatic idiocy of Christian theologians and their Islamic copycats.

Mabool wrote:

Bullshit. Being afraid of hell and believing that you're an unworthy sinner tends to make you unhappy.

Christians are the worst at religion and this again proves it. It's no surprise that it has devolved into a doomsday cult. Threatening children with hell is the sign of a terrible person.

Mabool wrote:

Forcing yourself to "love" the tyrant who sends you there tends to cause severe cognitive dissonance. Repressing all kinds of natural urges because they're termed sins basically eliminates the possibility of fulfillment.

Sins are anti-human actions. That's it. Blah blah, dogmatism is for douchebags, et cetera.

Mabool wrote:

(I know what you're going to say: This is not how faith works for you. Fine. This is how faith works for the common follower of an Abrahamic religion though.)

Only Christians and the anti-Islamic "Islamists" (who're really just radical Christians in an islamic veil). Most muslims are not raised to fear God. And even then your average "Christian" believes God is just out there to make heaven exist and keep your Granny company in heaven. Most, unless they've really done some fragged up shit in their life, don't ever even think about hell until they're about to die.

Mabool wrote:

Which it is if you're raised in a faith. Knowing about hell before knowing about evolution is pretty dangerous for anybody's emotional development if you ask me.

That's like saying knowing about Santa Claus before knowing about physics is dangerous for anybody's intellectual development. If you don't have awful people around you trying to hinder your emotional development (I mean threatening children with torture is about the most fragged thing I can think of) it shouldn't be a problem to hear about mythical places.

Quote:

That's like saying knowing about Santa Claus before knowing about physics is dangerous for anybody's intellectual development. If you don't have awful people around you trying to hinder your emotional development (I mean threatening children with torture is about the most fragged thing I can think of) it shouldn't be a problem to hear about mythical places.

To be honest, the problem is that children generally don't believe that Santa Claus will torture them for all eternity.

Dagoth Ur wrote:

If you accept that the soul is life itself then why do you say we never had a soul/life?

I don't, I stated the Christian perspective. I refuse to speak about souls.

Quote:

Also you're wrong. Most christians cling to this, idiotic, dichotomy between a non-material soul and a material life.

Not really... To a Christian, the soul is immaterial, and the essence of life. Life is immaterial to Christians, it's something that God miraculously assigns to dead matter.

Quote:

That PI uses an inaccurate and foolish interpretation of the soul (sorry PI) doesn't make a shitty argument against it any more valid. There is plenty of scientific evidence for what the soul was meant to represent, ie being alive, but yes there isn't any for the overly dogmatic idiocy of Christian theologians and their Islamic copycats.

Duh, I was talking to PI though, which makes your arguments very OT.

Quote:

Sins are anti-human actions. That's it. Blah blah, dogmatism is for douchebags, et cetera.

Quote:

Again you're just redefining words so they make sense ... This is not how faith works for you. Fine. This is how faith works for the common follower of an Abrahamic religion though.

Quote:

Only Christians and the anti-Islamic "Islamists" (who're really just radical Christians in an islamic veil). Most muslims are not raised to fear God.

Quote:

This is not how faith works for you. Fine. This is how faith works for the common follower of an Abrahamic religion though.

Quran wrote:

“O you who believe! Fear Allah as He should be feared, and die not except in a state of Islam. And hold fast, all together, by the rope which Allah (stretches out for you), and be not divided among yourselves...” (3:102-103)
“It is only the Evil One that suggests to you the fear of his votaries: be not afraid of them but fear Me if you have faith.” (3:175)
“And call in remembrance the favor of Allah unto you, and His Covenant, which He ratified with you, when you said: “We hear and we obey”: and fear Allah, for Allah knows well the secrets of your hearts.” (5:7)
“To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and on earth and to Him is duty due always: then will you fear other than Allah?” (16:52)
“Turn your back in repentance to Him and fear Him: establish regular prayers and be not among those who join gods with Allah.” (30:31)
“O you who believe! Fear Allah, and let every soul look to what (provision) he has sent forth for the morrow. Yea, fear Allah for Allah is well-acquainted with (all) that you do.” (59:18)

I'm happy to hear that you despise the fear and hellfire crap just as much as I do, though.

Quote:

And even then your average "Christian" believes God is just out there to make heaven exist and keep your Granny company in heaven. Most, unless they've really done some fragged up shit in their life, don't ever even think about hell until they're about to die.

I dunno. I'm intimately acquainted with both Protestant Fundamentalism and Eastern Orthodoxy and I promise that both of them care very much about hell. In fact, in Germany the only Christians that you get are fundie morons because the rest are only nominal Christians who are officially members of a Church but wouldn't even call themselves Christians anymore. Kinda like, "I don't believe in any of that crap but I go to Church on Christmas to make Granny happy." So I guess "your average Christian" means something different wherever you are - where I'm from, Christianity is very much an all or nothing thing.

There's no such thing as 'moral decline' and the term is only used by reactionaries who are upset that traditional mores where usurped by bourgeois liberalism. In supposedly 'moral' societies of the 19th century, the following were widespread in society:

• Slavery
• Child rape and prostitution
• Slave rape
• Children drinking and taking drugs
• Marital rape

Yet society didn't collapse and Britain was at its apex during the Pax Britannica period, despite having all the aforementioned. Also, I hardly think that racial minorities and women will hark back to a place where they knew their place. The only things I regret about modernity are the spread of a homogeneous corporate culture through globalisation and single motherhood but other than that, modernity has been awesome for a lot of downtrodden groups. Once reactionary cultures are destroyed, hopefully we can destroy some of the bad things associated with modernity, like replacing single motherhood with communal rearing and eliminating corporate culture.

Political Interest wrote:

In our civilisation we have disregarded tradition to such an extent that we have lost our soul.

Their is no such thing as 'soul'.

Political Interest wrote:

We are modern, we are technical, sophisticated, progressive and separate from the oriental "other".

Yes - and thats a good thing. This is cyber-age, buddy - and it provides us with free instantenous information 24/7 - and thanks to the Open Source movement and Free sharing - the proletariat isn't excluded. I have a hunch that this may play an important role when it comes to a revolution! :-)
BTW: Do you include Japan and S-Korea in your oriental 'other'??

Political Interest wrote:

Yet at the heart of it there is no driving or dynamic big idea, it is all simply material existence and the perpetuation of this way of living. What do we raise our children on, what religious faith are they raised in? Why is it that Westerners admire other cultures? Could it be that we have watered down our own? We have become a people without base. This cannot be sustained.

No offense - but this is pure 'romanticism'. It also is IMHO restitutionalist and conservative.

As to the fundamental difference between the 'romantic' attitude/point of view and the 'classic' attitude/point of view - please read 'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance' by Robert M. Pirsig.




___

----

The whole thesis is reactionary in many ways (any possible), but I'll see it from this antidialectical point of view

Quote:

In other words the West is simply a hollow society without a basis or living culture. In all civilisations throughout the world the people have their traditions. This can be seen in China, the Middle East, Africa, anywhere on this earth. From a young age the children are raised in a certain way, faith is upheld and there exist in these places very real cultures which are dynamic and thriving.

These are the cities of the man who is never satisfied, he is always in motion, chasing he's dreams motivated by the pursuit of the unkown. He's the Faustian type of man, Spengler would say.

If you see it from this "cultrural" point of view, the "western" is not the same as the Chinese, or the Arab or the African, as you state, and has never been. The basic quality of the "westerner" is that his culture has always been in a dynamic condition, in contrast with the ie CHinese, which managed to preserve their culture and strict traditions for thousands of years. Chinese society used to be one of the most static societies ever. The same happens with Islam, and the rest. Their societys are immobile.

Nazis are using this argument, that the "superiority" of the westerner is that he can create and evolve a civilisation, in contrast with the rest who simply preserve what's given.

Find me a period of the West that this happened.. I guess you won;t find any.. Only some romantic views, used ny the nazis, about the Nordic mysticist culture, which actually doesnt correspond to the trurh, or at least not until they were able to travel outside their villages and meet the romans.


WHat I want to say is that your point of view is more "Eastern" than "Western"

ckkomel wrote:

[...]These are the cities of the man who is never satisfied, he is always in motion, chasing he's dreams motivated by the pursuit of the unkown.[...]

Correct. Motivated by the advertizing industries efforts to create new 'needs'. The heavy emphasizing on private property plays a role too. Provided that you have food, shelter, human interaction and a certain level of security plus a job that is more or less gratifying even in a non monetary way then you have the basics. When asked about what to do with the surplus money, I always answer: Invest in education! (...and NOT in the newest, flashiest, most popular smartphone, car, house etc. etc.)

On a sidenote:

ckkomel wrote:

[...]He's the Faustian type of man, Spengler would say.[...]

Yes, in a way. But Spenglers 'Faust' strives to attain the un-attainable. Modern man who takes part in the Rat Race strives IMHO to get the newest, most popular, most prestigue giving commodity and if he has succeeded - he/she gets a kick of accomplishment. Alas that effect doesn't last long and very soon he/she is in the Rat Race again.

Goethes Faust on the other side doesn't pursue material goods but the ultimate knowledge and in order to get it he sells his soul to the devil (Mephistopheles).

---

Well, the OP is a bunch of rhetoric that deliberately avoids getting concrete, so there is not much to discuss here. But it is always kind of surprising to see that people on internet forums (usually young men) are always pining for the good old days when western culture was still great, traditions were still upheld, blahblahblah.

When exactly was that period? How can we possibly know about it, considering that we weren't there? What made it so great? Was it actually all that great for anyone but the elites? And what precisely is wrong now (culturally speaking)?

It seems to me that you're only pushing for two things:

1) More influence of religion (or at least spirituality) in daily cultural life.
2) For western culture to become less prominent in the world in general.

Neither of which seem particularly good or even useful ideas right now.