Arguing that the Aztec-Spanish clash was solely because of cultural differences and not because of race is ridiculous. Radical misunderstanding of civilizations that seems to completely neglect external factors.
Well, this is abominable. The European genocide in the Americas was merely the inevitable outcome of its culture that valued individuals? Are you serious?
the durant quote does heavy lifting here and it's earned: "we are what we repeatedly do" applied to civilizations.
but the jump from "cultures have different habits" to "christianity's logos is the objectively correct animating principle" skips about fourteen steps. you could make the exact same structural argument with confucian order or even roman civic religion.
1. "Culture" is a modern secular concept, as shown by Romano Guardini.
2. The “West” is also a fake concept by seculars appropriating Christendom
3. Also "Natural Law" is a very ambiguous concept. Aristotle does not believe in the “dignity of the human person”. And the Mosaic Law is not Natural -- It is Supernatural.
4. Family IS NOT the building block of Civilization: Christ is the foundation stone, and Christians are stones .Not families.
5. "Virtue Ethics" is Not fundamentally Christian nor is Christian morality fundamentally about virtues
6. Christian Civilization / Morality IS NOT “objectively better” because it doesn’t recognize Objects as a source or criteria of values, and God is not an object. Rather, it is Intrinsically Better, because the Good is at its core, as its own Creator
7. Every time some Conservative tries to evaluate Christianity “from the outside, comparatively” he lost the plot Right There and Then. There is NO “impartial vantage point” that simultaneously “can discern good from evil”. This is a very very defenseless position
I was wondering what the author thinks of how Indian (as in Indian subcontinent)., and Chinese and Japanese cultures and for that fact the middle eastern big Abrahamic religion Islam fare in the grand scheme of civilizations rise and fall. And what the author thinks of the invention of zero and the numerals we use today. Not trying to be smart ass. Just wondering what the author has to say about those civilizations
Nice intellectual thought inquiry here by you Ajay. But for me, it's all about weaponry, and their unfettered use when required. Be it defensive and or offensive. No amount of debate can save you without the proper tools for survival. In whole or in part.
Yes. Some cultures are more moral than others in aggregate. However, there is something that I want to push back on.
The claim that Atheism and Materialism (which I take to be identical in meaning to physicalism) do not in and of themselves entail moral or aesthetic relativism, nor do they entail rejecting objective truth (in that some statements are true independent of what any being or agent believes or thinks).
This is important since rejecting objective truth means rejecting materialism itself. Since if the former is true, then it is not objectively true that only physical things exist. Thus rejecting objective truth is not only self refuting, it undermines materialism/physicalism.
Moreover, no argument or substantiation has been given that atheism or materialism/physicalism entails rejecting objective truth or moral realism or aesthetic realism.
Example of rewriting history because this is peak selection bias masquerading as universal principle. How did the author omit tSpanish Inquisition with an 3,000–5,000 executions, The transatlantic slave trade that was a Christian-run enterprise that enslaved 12-20 million Africans.
Colonial genocide in the Americas that killed an estimated 90% of the indigenous population.
The Holocaust that was perpetrated in majority by Christian Europe..
Also Spengler was not a Christian supremacist.. Wow
To answer your question - yes, of course . . . silly question.
Culture is the elephant in the barn . . Race and gender are akin to small animals (dog / cats) . . Ethnicity, tribes, and religions are like large farm animals. Cultural equivalence is a joke, unless you redefine culture as something it isn’t. But then,redefinition is the methodology of the day. If a self-contained culture lives and self-destructs in the jungle, without a trace, does it matter if it ever existed?
Cultures can be better or worse morally—that makes sense to many people. But saying Christian culture is objectively best is more of a faith view, not proven fact. Secular thinkers, Muslims, or Confucians might agree on morals but disagree on which culture wins—and history shows Christians often fell short of their own ideals. Strip away the edgy Aztec-Spanish stuff (which might rile up some readers), and I enjoyed the piece.
Arguing that the Aztec-Spanish clash was solely because of cultural differences and not because of race is ridiculous. Radical misunderstanding of civilizations that seems to completely neglect external factors.
Teacher in school taught us that the Aztec Empire collapsed in a context of military conquest + devastating epidemic disease
Well, this is abominable. The European genocide in the Americas was merely the inevitable outcome of its culture that valued individuals? Are you serious?
the durant quote does heavy lifting here and it's earned: "we are what we repeatedly do" applied to civilizations.
but the jump from "cultures have different habits" to "christianity's logos is the objectively correct animating principle" skips about fourteen steps. you could make the exact same structural argument with confucian order or even roman civic religion.
Life-destroying gibberish. How did I accidentally subscribe to this tripe?
1. "Culture" is a modern secular concept, as shown by Romano Guardini.
2. The “West” is also a fake concept by seculars appropriating Christendom
3. Also "Natural Law" is a very ambiguous concept. Aristotle does not believe in the “dignity of the human person”. And the Mosaic Law is not Natural -- It is Supernatural.
4. Family IS NOT the building block of Civilization: Christ is the foundation stone, and Christians are stones .Not families.
5. "Virtue Ethics" is Not fundamentally Christian nor is Christian morality fundamentally about virtues
6. Christian Civilization / Morality IS NOT “objectively better” because it doesn’t recognize Objects as a source or criteria of values, and God is not an object. Rather, it is Intrinsically Better, because the Good is at its core, as its own Creator
7. Every time some Conservative tries to evaluate Christianity “from the outside, comparatively” he lost the plot Right There and Then. There is NO “impartial vantage point” that simultaneously “can discern good from evil”. This is a very very defenseless position
I was wondering what the author thinks of how Indian (as in Indian subcontinent)., and Chinese and Japanese cultures and for that fact the middle eastern big Abrahamic religion Islam fare in the grand scheme of civilizations rise and fall. And what the author thinks of the invention of zero and the numerals we use today. Not trying to be smart ass. Just wondering what the author has to say about those civilizations
Nice intellectual thought inquiry here by you Ajay. But for me, it's all about weaponry, and their unfettered use when required. Be it defensive and or offensive. No amount of debate can save you without the proper tools for survival. In whole or in part.
Yes. Some cultures are more moral than others in aggregate. However, there is something that I want to push back on.
The claim that Atheism and Materialism (which I take to be identical in meaning to physicalism) do not in and of themselves entail moral or aesthetic relativism, nor do they entail rejecting objective truth (in that some statements are true independent of what any being or agent believes or thinks).
This is important since rejecting objective truth means rejecting materialism itself. Since if the former is true, then it is not objectively true that only physical things exist. Thus rejecting objective truth is not only self refuting, it undermines materialism/physicalism.
Moreover, no argument or substantiation has been given that atheism or materialism/physicalism entails rejecting objective truth or moral realism or aesthetic realism.
Oh man. Wow.. This is text book
Example of rewriting history because this is peak selection bias masquerading as universal principle. How did the author omit tSpanish Inquisition with an 3,000–5,000 executions, The transatlantic slave trade that was a Christian-run enterprise that enslaved 12-20 million Africans.
Colonial genocide in the Americas that killed an estimated 90% of the indigenous population.
The Holocaust that was perpetrated in majority by Christian Europe..
Also Spengler was not a Christian supremacist.. Wow
Article summarized in a single word: yes.
To answer your question - yes, of course . . . silly question.
Culture is the elephant in the barn . . Race and gender are akin to small animals (dog / cats) . . Ethnicity, tribes, and religions are like large farm animals. Cultural equivalence is a joke, unless you redefine culture as something it isn’t. But then,redefinition is the methodology of the day. If a self-contained culture lives and self-destructs in the jungle, without a trace, does it matter if it ever existed?
Cultures can be better or worse morally—that makes sense to many people. But saying Christian culture is objectively best is more of a faith view, not proven fact. Secular thinkers, Muslims, or Confucians might agree on morals but disagree on which culture wins—and history shows Christians often fell short of their own ideals. Strip away the edgy Aztec-Spanish stuff (which might rile up some readers), and I enjoyed the piece.