Renaissance: Euro/Christian-centric?

[robotic]

for such a vast topic, i can only scratch the surface ;D

i haven't read much about the renaissance x_x but i often wonder: did it take place, eventually, throughout the world - or has it only ever existed in europe / the christendom world?

a lot of the humanist ideals, such as the seperation of say, church (or any other religious institution) and state, marriages becoming more of a personal affair (than a union between two families), etc. have not been carried out of the liberated western, european etc. culture. for instance, in many muslim countries even today - religious ideology and the state are permanently combined - and infact after the large muslim empires diminished (the mughals, ottomans, etc.) the stress on intellectual refinement, the arts, scientific progression, so on and so forth also decreased. the western world picked up on the advancement done by the islamic world after coming out of the dark ages and continued beyond what the various muslim empires had founded or started.

so did the renaissance infact, ever universally take place? can it be so when many humanistic ideals are only atypical to modern western ideals and cultures?

[Napoleon Chynamite]

It's undoubtedly Euro/Christian-centric. In fact almost every field or subject we study here even in higher education is Eurocentric...this is evident in that the vast majority of historians, philosophers, discoverers, etc. and those presented to have made invaluable contributions to academia in a lot of sociology courses such as Poli Sci and Psych (social science?), and even many hard sciences such as Astronomy, Physics, Chemistry, Biology, etc. are of European descent (I think I learned in college was that basically everything science and philosophy-related started like with the ancient Greeks and Babylonians). I suppose I'm willing to entertain that while the contributions and discoveries of non-Europeans in past history can be sometimes argued as not quite as relevant when you relate them to the [undoubtedly Western-influenced] scientific community that exists today, ultimately they are often not even mentioned.

[robotic]

^^ undoubtedly true.

so i guess, just because many countries in asia don't fit into the atypical humanistic progression: does it really mean that they haven't progressed at all? i think we only feel that way because, well, everything we've been taught is through a western perspective. and perspectives differ.

[zarathustra]

^^ undoubtedly true.

so i guess, just because many countries in asia don't fit into the atypical humanistic progression: does it really mean that they haven't progressed at all? ...

I would suggest reading up in western sociological studies of China (the best of them aren't available in English but only european languages). English histories of Chinese science (like Needham) aren't done by social or human scientists so they don't really offer much analysis. In Needham, you'll find quotes of important authors so you'll know who they are.

As far as progress, it seems natural sciences have progressed although not in the same way as in Europe; Chinese philosophy has always been in the service of the state--scholars worked for sovereigns and were selected by how well they memorized the classics. Even in ancient texts, knowledge, rule of the family and social customs started with the state. It's easy to see once you study the Chinese classics like the Book of Rites (which includes the Great Learning--the work that has defined the general limits of philosophical inquiry).

Progress in philosophy and social sciences like sociology mostly stopped after China unified. After the warring states, no major new philosophies were invented. Whats discussed the most--Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism--all came to be during the warring states period. Since then, scholars have mostly spent time discussing these topics. As far as I know, there haven't been any original philosophies since then. Scholars spent most of their time editing the classic works attributed to Confucius.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

^ Problem is, regardless of lack of recent progress in the aforementioned fields, Chinese philosophy and political ideology is basically covered in like 3-4 pages (or if we're lucky, a chapter) in some general education course during college freshman year designed to basically give the student a broad overall introduction to the histories and cultures of the world. At least, that was my experience.

As far as I can tell, Chinese philosophy is barely even mentioned at all in many Philosophy or Political Thought courses themselves, and you'd have to go out of your way to purposely select an Eastern Philosophy class or something (which my school did not have), most likely taught by a white guy (just like my Asian Film studies course). I do know that this doesn't apply to all universities though because mine was like 90 percent white.

[zarathustra]

As far as I can tell, Chinese philosophy is barely even mentioned at all in many Philosophy or Political Thought courses themselves, and you'd have to go out of your way to purposely select an Eastern Philosophy class or something (which my school did not have), most likely taught by a white guy (just like my Asian Film studies course). I do know that this doesn't apply to all universities though because mine was like 90 percent white.

And it's only recently that western philosophy was studied in China. Maybe the last 100-150 years? For a while, Communists denied imperialist disciplines like anthropology and sociology. Stuff takes time.

You expect every country to study every other country? See how it is somewhere else. :)

As for me, I've studied philosophy in the US and I think it's time to study it in China.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

^ Of course I know that's the way it is over in China, and while I don't expect every country to study every other country, you'd think that institutions of higher education presenting courses that advertise broad overviews and coverage of various disciplines would at least include a bit of information from all major regions of the globe. I'm quite aware that the situation in the U.S. is at the very least better than that of many other countries in terms of being open-minded to incoming ideas, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't consistently strive for improvement. It's not really about comparing or assigning blame.

[zarathustra]

It'll happen eventually. I'm in no rush. :)

As for some thoughts from people who have studied China, here's some.

This (Chinese) thought which seems in essence picturesque and musical and which expresses itself in any case through rhythm and concrete symbols, what can it achieve when applied to a domain where precise and distinct formulations as well as explicit judgments are required? What kind of sincerity can there be in a kind of thought which takes not lived experience but tradition as a point of departure?...What power would the principles of contradiction and of causality have -- without which scientific thought can hardly proceed or be expressed? - Granet

When we speak of the Chinese sciences...we see that they enjoy very great public admiration and support from the government...Thus on the one hand the sciences are highly honored and cultivated, but on the other hand these sciences lack the free space of inner reflection and the properly scientific interest that would make it into a scientific endeavour. A free and ideal realm of the spirit has no place here, and what is called scientific here is of an empirical nature and is essentially in the service of what is useful for the state and for the needs of the state and the individuals. The nature of the written language in itself is a great hindrance for the development of the sciences; or rather vice versa since the true scientific interest is lacking, the Chinese have no better instrument for the articulation and communication of thoughts. - Hegel

Before you react, many people who have studied China (even the Chinese) take these statements very seriously and many don't even understand them.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

^ Yea. Well I'm well aware of how people like Hegel viewed China back in the day. Perhaps I'm not giving these great political philosophers their due and it might be more useful to actually try to find out how they arrived at such conclusions, but I find it much easier to just ignore them and form my own opinions and philosophy from my own experiences.

[zarathustra]

^ Yea. Well I'm well aware of how people like Hegel viewed China back in the day. Perhaps I'm not giving these great political philosophers their due and it might be more useful to actually try to find out how they arrived at such conclusions, but I find it much easier to just ignore them and form my own opinions and philosophy from my own experiences.

:) Then I'm sure you're aware how personal experience has formed so many varied beliefs. If you want to know more and verify this stuff, it's out there.

There are also many Chinese philosophers who agree and ask the same questions. Everyone else, is just being a good Chinese and respecting their ancestors. :)

[Napoleon Chynamite]

I'm not really driven by motives such as respect, pride, or nationalism..after studying the views and perspectives of dozens of political philosophers and political thought ultimately it all comes down to experience and perhaps historical context which causes people, no matter how intelligent, to arrive at their own respective conclusions. For instance, Marx labeled religion as an "opiate of the masses". From my experiences, I disagree. In any case, I believe you can be a "good Chinese" and respect your ancestors while at the same time disagreeing with what they stood for.

[zarathustra]

In any case, I believe you can be a "good Chinese" and respect your ancestors while at the same time disagreeing with what they stood for.

I've been thinking recently about Durkheim's value-free sociology. I care more about figuring why things come to be than in having anything to believe in. :)

As for your respect for ancestors, ever read the classical Chinese books and try to figure out why these issues are so important to them?

You can see in the Great Learning that the every like family, virtue, and proper behavior begins from the state. The primary concern is the state:

...
The ancients who wished to illustrate illustrious virtue throughout the
kingdom, first ordered well their own States.
Wishing to order well their States, they first regulated their families.
...

The book that the Great Learning comes from is also very significant. It's only a beginning but you can see why Hegel believed what he did.

It's very interesting that when states were warring for power, many philosophies were invented. Scholars worked in the service of the state. When China unified, philosophical invention pretty much ended. Scholars were employed for the service of maintaining power, re-interpreting and editing the classics in the name of the sovereign.

[Noiseman433]

And it's only recently that western philosophy was studied in China. Maybe the last 100-150 years? For a while, Communists denied imperialist disciplines like anthropology and sociology. Stuff takes time.


I was surprised and delighted to find that Aristotle had been translated into Chinese (the Ming li t'an of Li Zhizao and P. Franciscus Furtado) in the 1600s.

Though I guess I really shouldn't have been surprised--Jesuit missionaries have been transmitting texts through translations between Asia and Europe since at least as early as the 1500s (and possibly in the late 1400s).