Is Western culture "superior" to Arabic cultures?

Ottoman Turks were long the most advanced Islamic power, and even their elite were mostly Christian Armenians, and Greeks.

 

You are making a common mistake by supposing the Renaissance was inspired by Muslim scholars. It was not. It was inspired by Greek scholars fleeing the conquest of Constantinople by the Muslims. Western Civilization owes nothing to Muslim culture. What little culture the Muslims use to have was ripped off from Byzantium, in any case.

I can't imagine what you suppose to be influences from Indian culture. I do agree that the Hindus do have a sophisticated civilization. But I don't see any important influence from them.

 

Thanks for the well though-out reply

Recent innovations to the culture are, nonetheless, a part of the culture as it exists today. I guess I am concerned about the current Western culture (s) and the current Arabic culture(s) .

You've successfully restructured the question into whether liberal is superior to conservative.

Should a liberal society tolerate or even protect an illiberal sub-culture? If we can find it within ourselves to tolerate an Islamic sub-culture, why are we not as tolerant of hick bible bashers?

 

There isn't a clear conflict. That 'conflict' only existed as a result therein of the Second World War. Superiority can be acknowledged without rubbing it into their faces. After all, at one point(say, 900 AD), it was Persia and China that were the world powers, America didn't exist and Europe was a baby continent at the time.

But having seen the world develop since the fall of the Ottoman Empire, it's clear to say distinctively that the Western Civilizations are superior to that of the Middle East. Not just for of course, protecting and advancing human civil rights, but also in providing the necessary economic protections that have enabled markets to grow and for people to reach their fullest potential.

The West is superior and will only keep its superiority as long as it remembers the power of the Blue-Collar middle class worker, and the economic strength therein. All Empires collapsed when they converted mass human civilian power into military power..

 

How does that make it objectively better? It may be more flexible, but why does that necessarily mean "better"? Just look at your own example. You claim classical pieces are objectively better than pop songs, because they are more musically complex. But pop songs are far more popular than classical pieces. Classical music would seem to fail a basic test of "better" -- outperforming the competition.

Or look at graphic design. There are thousands of fonts out there. But a tenet of good design is to restrict yourself to one or two fonts in a design, to avoid visual noise. Indeed, many design schools introduce typography by only letting students work with a single weight of a single face for all their designs, to show them that good design isn't about the chosen typeface. Less choice often leads to better designs.

Indeed, the whole idea of Modern design is simplicity, getting back to basics, and rejecting what is seen as excessive decoration. If we took your formulation, we would have to argue that Baroque design is objectively better than Modern. I don't see how you can make the case that either one is objectively better.

Or take computer programming, where flexibility invariably comes at the price of complexity. Being more flexible is not always better -- sometimes, it's just unnecessary complication.

Thanks for the condescension. I was not discarding them as "ephemera" in general, but only in the context of trying to claim one culture is objectively better than another. Matters of taste are not objective.

 

There is no such thing as "Arabic culture".

Arabs in Lebanon are very diverse, religiously.

Arabs in Saudi Arabia are quite Conservative.

Its ignorant to suggest they are all the same.

 

Come to southie and say it to my family's face

 

And that's fair. You still have the problem of trying to figure out what is an inherent part of "the culture" and what is due to other factors, and being rigorous about weeding out things that are simply a matter of taste, or simply things you are used to because you were raised in one culture or the other.

I didn't mean to do that. It's just that all of your examples were of things that are more valued in liberal societies than in conservative ones. I happen to think that liberalism/conservatism are a yin/yang sort of thing -- constantly in tension, but both necessary for a healthy society. To grossly generalize, liberals move society forward, while conservatives keep them from going too far, too fast.

I'm not aware of hick bible-bashers being outlawed.

A confident society is strong enough to tolerate all sorts of sub-cultures. "Tolerate" does not mean "approve of". It just means "doesn't ban or legally restrict." I tolerate neo-Nazis and the alt-right. Doesn't mean I'm going to let them walk around unopposed: I have free-speech rights, too. It also doesn't mean they can violate or ignore the law.

 

Agreed. Same with food taste-tests and the like.

I'm not saying such things are unimportant: just that they can't really be used as a yardstick to compare cultures. I think it's impossible to say that "Western music is better than Arab music" or "Arab art is better than Western art."

 

It was certainly boosted by this, but the Renaissance had already been cooking for maybe 50-100 years by then.

Nonetheless, what I am saying is that the Renaissance had a feedback with the Islamic World, which at that time was more advanced in medicine and science etc. It was the Moors, for instance, who brought street-lighting to the West. And Gothic design is almost entirely Arabic http://www.muslimheritage.com/article/christopher-wren-and-muslim-origin-gothic-architecture

Fabrics and craftsmanship technology fed majorly into the industrial revolution. Hence the French, Dutch and English East India Companies.

 

(*)(*)(*)(*) no. Spent enough time there for a lifetime.

What a miserable hellhole.

Bunch of (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s.

 

7th century male centric religious dictators who go on genocidic murder tours to thin out the competion every few hundred years vs an open and accepting free society that prohibits a religious test to hold office and allows freedom of religion and equal rights concerning sex and race.
Not really too tough to decide.

 

Never been to Boston. But internet bravery is not a good way to represent. Try winning the intellectual argument.

 

The funny thing about Islamist culture is that they are envied by many male cheavunists in The West.

 

You can easily say the same for Western culture. In fact, Lebabon is often described as one of the most "western" of the Middle Eastern cultures. But what do we actually mean when we say that?

 

Nobody cares about your feelings of southie or Boston. The greatest place on earth

 

tiny little college town full of bigots.

thats what everyone tells me

 

Everyone is a bigot to you, Ron. Except liberal extremists that riot in the streets because a white male won the Presidency

 

We spend far less per capita. And at least in the early days most of that spending was for defense against invading Muslims...

 

"Superior" is the wrong word, "Incompatible" is the better word.

And we were here in North America first, so "Arab Culture", stay in Arabia. Thanks.


.... Next!


-

 

So if I can paraphrase: your solution would be to use the dominant culture to set ground rules (ie laws) by which the sub-cultures will be tolerated. The law is enforced on the actions of individuals, including the organizers of individuals acting in concert.

Free speech is protected and violence outlawed so that sub-cultures can compete for dominance without threatening the rule of law.

All makes sense, except if the laws prevent free speech in any way.

That pretty much sums up most of Western Culture, doesn't it. Maybe that's why it seems to be performing better, because it is structured to withstand tolerance of sub-cultures.

 

that is false. Nobody in Boston cares about my feelings because they are the rudest (*)(*)(*)(*)ing people on earth. Other People are much more considerate.

 

I'm not sure you can objectively separate the two, our world is too small. How many valuable advances from 'western culture' involved algebra?



​

 

Although my personal preference is that Western Culture is superior because most of the things I like reside in Western Cultures and generally don't reside in non Western Cultures. But...I'm a product of Western Culture, so my preferences are shaped by the culture I grew up in. If you just go by a checkbox of living conditions, health, ect...the West far outstrips the non West, but again, the checkboxes we use are based on things that Westerners think are important.

We have different countries for a reason, so I'm fine with other cultures thinking they're superior in their own countries.

 

Ah sorry. Now it makes sense. You got your feelings hurt.

Hope you found your safe space