I'm Chinese (well, half-Chinese). I don't appreciate an opinion on individual liberty and freedom of expression, association, self-determiniation, etc. being labeled as "East vs West" or worse, connected to imperialism or being implicitly racist.
The Enlightenment began with the belief that all people are equal. ALL. Doesn't matter if you are white or black or asian or indigenous, or what family, race, gender or sexual orientation you happened to be born into. The Enlightenment has torn down the institution of slavery, overthrown monarchies, revoked state-run monopolies, and given franchise to women and minorities. And it has brought monumental progress to ALL of humankind, including basically all modern technology and medicine. And we are still moving forward, this juggernaut of progress, and we are doing so BECAUSE we have freedoms. The history of the world is that of brief stints of progress being flamed out by oppressive regimes until at long last the scientific revolution took hold. I won't apologize for standing with the Enlightenment and judging governments by how well they achieve these goals for their citizens. As China seeks to control its people, it does so at the detriment of future progress not in service of it.
China's anti-liberty actions and policies are regressive and on the wrong side of history. And to say that it is somehow just an expression of different culture is insulting to the Chinese people who deserve freedom and personal liberty, and dishonor to the memory of those like Sun Yat-sen and others who fought for and achieved societal revolution towards Enlightenment ideals in China and with the support of the Chinese people. There's nothing uniquely Chinese about totalitarian oppression, or anything unique about the Chinese people that make them ineligible for our sympathies.
Wow, this was really well-written, and hit on so many excellent points. I'd love to quote your comment elsewhere, if you don't mind.
I find it really sad when some people think that the basic ideas of the Enlightenment are somehow "Western". They originated in the West, but they are absolutely and in no way linked to any notion of "Western culture".
As some that's mildly libertarian leaning, I'd say the core ideals of Enlightenment are universal moral principles that are objectively good, and workable for any human society.
For example, the principle of free speech boils down to this simple concept: Don't commit acts of violence against someone because they __said__ something you don't like (with emphasis on "said"). This is not a hard concept to grasp.
When some culture claims that such a principle (like free speech) is not "compatible" with their culture, it's a cop-out, and an excuse for some group of people to continue maintaining power, or something like it.
I'd love to quote your comment elsewhere, if you don't mind.
Sure.
[the ideas of the Englightenment] originated in the West
I would say they first took root and lasted long enough to have impact in the West. As you say, the ideas of the Enlightenment are universal moral principles that aren't really tied to specific culture, a sort of political version of the Golden Rule. It might even have been the state of nature before agriculture and townships gave rise to kingships and states. We didn't used to be slaves to The Man.
To harp on the theme of this thread, things could have gone very differently if Mo Di's philosophy became the official state belief instead of Confucius' legalism:
Comments
I'm Chinese (well, half-Chinese). I don't appreciate an opinion on individual liberty and freedom of expression, association, self-determiniation, etc. being labeled as "East vs West" or worse, connected to imperialism or being implicitly racist.
The Enlightenment began with the belief that all people are equal. ALL. Doesn't matter if you are white or black or asian or indigenous, or what family, race, gender or sexual orientation you happened to be born into. The Enlightenment has torn down the institution of slavery, overthrown monarchies, revoked state-run monopolies, and given franchise to women and minorities. And it has brought monumental progress to ALL of humankind, including basically all modern technology and medicine. And we are still moving forward, this juggernaut of progress, and we are doing so BECAUSE we have freedoms. The history of the world is that of brief stints of progress being flamed out by oppressive regimes until at long last the scientific revolution took hold. I won't apologize for standing with the Enlightenment and judging governments by how well they achieve these goals for their citizens. As China seeks to control its people, it does so at the detriment of future progress not in service of it.
China's anti-liberty actions and policies are regressive and on the wrong side of history. And to say that it is somehow just an expression of different culture is insulting to the Chinese people who deserve freedom and personal liberty, and dishonor to the memory of those like Sun Yat-sen and others who fought for and achieved societal revolution towards Enlightenment ideals in China and with the support of the Chinese people. There's nothing uniquely Chinese about totalitarian oppression, or anything unique about the Chinese people that make them ineligible for our sympathies.
Wow, this was really well-written, and hit on so many excellent points. I'd love to quote your comment elsewhere, if you don't mind.
I find it really sad when some people think that the basic ideas of the Enlightenment are somehow "Western". They originated in the West, but they are absolutely and in no way linked to any notion of "Western culture".
As some that's mildly libertarian leaning, I'd say the core ideals of Enlightenment are universal moral principles that are objectively good, and workable for any human society.
For example, the principle of free speech boils down to this simple concept: Don't commit acts of violence against someone because they __said__ something you don't like (with emphasis on "said"). This is not a hard concept to grasp.
When some culture claims that such a principle (like free speech) is not "compatible" with their culture, it's a cop-out, and an excuse for some group of people to continue maintaining power, or something like it.
Sure.
I would say they first took root and lasted long enough to have impact in the West. As you say, the ideas of the Enlightenment are universal moral principles that aren't really tied to specific culture, a sort of political version of the Golden Rule. It might even have been the state of nature before agriculture and townships gave rise to kingships and states. We didn't used to be slaves to The Man.
To harp on the theme of this thread, things could have gone very differently if Mo Di's philosophy became the official state belief instead of Confucius' legalism:
https://www.ancient.eu/Mo_Ti/