Quote:
Originally Posted by komitsuki
We shouldn't debate between us. Period.
I still don't fully accept it because I consider rationalism a central element of culture of the West. So, no matter what, I will always think "rational = culture" in political situation.
What can I say?
Now do you see the problem why we can't debate? We already have very opposite thinking.
|
Rationalism is the school of thought in which ideas should be formed using reason and judged on merit. All philosophy aims to be rational. If something is not rational then it is irrational. In other words culture and rationalism have nothing to do with each other.
Culture is a concept which describes a conscious expression (or set of expressions) which symbolises a common experience (for the most part nationality or race... but things like punk and hip hop can also be described as a culture).
But my main beef with you stems from your implication that culture is static. It's not. It's dynamic and always changing. Especially in the modern world.
For example- Japanese culture is said to be Confucian.. but it's not JUST Confucian. Much of it is influenced by the West and in turn Japanese culture influences Western culture. The same goes for other cultures.
This impacts on our argument
because to you... the limited success (though I must stress the success part) which Asian countries have taken on Democracy means that Democracy has failed in Asia and is due in large part to Confucianist philosophy. It's simply not true. In fact the ex South Korean president I mentioned earlier, whose name I forget but who wrote an essay on this subject that I think is really amazing, not only points out that Asia has thus far, adopted liberalism faster than Europe did since the age of enlightenment began in the 17th century, but also points out that many of the principles of Confucianism are actually very compatible with liberalism.