I did say that maintaining our power position on the global stage was one of the priorities of western society. Nevertheless, the argument I was engaging in wasn't one on the intrinsic value or merits of western global governance but on the west versus china and economic performance as a measurement of succes.
Yes, there are apparent contradictions which flowed from western policies the world over. It is equally true that over the same time-period international institutions such as the UN and ICC (and many others) have matured and grown in prominence, by and large pushed for through western idealism. The system of states as we know it and the global community were initiatives that found their roots in European thinking. If you're a cynic, nihilist or deconstructionist then I'm sure we can pick apart these developments into the inherent or hidden but entrenched power structures that govern us and guide us to less-than-ethical or morally unsound actions and creations. But you're more than educated enough to know that analysis only through various lenses steeped in pessimism won't get you to a wholly truthful view of reality.
One of the few more positively inclined works you can find written by pragmatists such as Rorty (who thank god among all the philosophical beat-downs of postmodernism is willing to think in terms of future solutions). The pragmatist trend does end up full circle in the argument that different value systems and paradigms should meet one another in an 'edifying conversation', ergo a more informed/intelligent form of a democratic process. Acknowledging our imperfections, lack of perceptiveness, perhaps brutish realism if extrapolated to politics, and a willingness to consider our goals & ideals through the eyes of different and contrary schools of thought.
Ultimately and perhaps it is a sign of my western-centrism, but I do feel our cultures and societies are most capable of getting us there and that we have done the most so far to move in the right direction. Because of the permissiveness we have to criticism and the (though limited) collective openness to self-reflection.
Yes, there are apparent contradictions which flowed from western policies the world over. It is equally true that over the same time-period international institutions such as the UN and ICC (and many others) have matured and grown in prominence, by and large pushed for through western idealism. The system of states as we know it and the global community were initiatives that found their roots in European thinking. If you're a cynic, nihilist or deconstructionist then I'm sure we can pick apart these developments into the inherent or hidden but entrenched power structures that govern us and guide us to less-than-ethical or morally unsound actions and creations. But you're more than educated enough to know that analysis only through various lenses steeped in pessimism won't get you to a wholly truthful view of reality.
One of the few more positively inclined works you can find written by pragmatists such as Rorty (who thank god among all the philosophical beat-downs of postmodernism is willing to think in terms of future solutions). The pragmatist trend does end up full circle in the argument that different value systems and paradigms should meet one another in an 'edifying conversation', ergo a more informed/intelligent form of a democratic process. Acknowledging our imperfections, lack of perceptiveness, perhaps brutish realism if extrapolated to politics, and a willingness to consider our goals & ideals through the eyes of different and contrary schools of thought.
Ultimately and perhaps it is a sign of my western-centrism, but I do feel our cultures and societies are most capable of getting us there and that we have done the most so far to move in the right direction. Because of the permissiveness we have to criticism and the (though limited) collective openness to self-reflection.
Last edited by Larssen (2019-12-29 04:03:20)
