Cases for considering the European Tradition: Islam and America

Jun 2016
85
A Shell of Steel
It's not being fallacious, it's about being inaccurate. In my opinion.

Geographic Europe is one thing, cultural Europe is another thing.

Geographic Europe is delimited at East by Ural mountains, at South East by Caspian Sea and Caucasian Mountains today. But I suppose we agree that very few see as "European tradition" what's at East of today Poland and Romania.

Back to Greek: they were a Mediterranean civilization, and You will find almost nothing influencing, bringing something relevant form the core of geographical Europe (today's Czechoslovakia for example). Asia Minor, on the other hand was determinant. Think Troy, think Alexandria, aso.

It isn't different for ancient Rome: geographic core of Europe was periphery, even dispensable. Not Mid-East, not Northern Africa. Think about: what brought Germans to Rome and what brought Egypt for example?

Even in early Christianity: how much came from the Germanic, or Gallic or Slavic areal and how much from Asia minor?

Okay, I understand what you are saying here I think. I just don't really see why it is a problem. That much of Europe was not culturally relevant to Greece and Roman empire whereas something like Egypt might have had more relevance. So we are saying that the cultural communities were different from the end of the classical periods to what we call the middle ages and so on.

And that it would be later that Europe started to develop something closer to a European consciousness as opposed to a Roman or Greek consciousness. And that while Rome and Greece might have been geographically in Europe they did not find that categorization culturally relevant or relevant to the development of their culture and civilization.

This seems to me more or less what you are saying, I hope I am not distorting it? I am rephrasing it so you can tell me if I've understood.

The reason I don't see this as a problem is because even if European cultural consciousness developed later, it still included the inheritence of the Greeks and Romans in a way that it did not include areas outside of Europe. Also because European consciousness later developed based around this geographical region, what is within this region becomes important for our consciousness and self-understanding, despite there being a shift perhaps in civilizations. (I'm thinking of the perspectives here of eg. Spengler, Toynbee, etc.) I also think this consciousness is compounded by the continuity that existed before and after the fall of Rome, eg. I gave before Boethius and neo-platonic philosophy.

I'd like to discuss further this line of reasoning you brought up. Perhaps you still see a problem with what I have just said?
 
Last edited:
Jun 2016
85
A Shell of Steel
It's not being fallacious, it's about being inaccurate. In my opinion.

Geographic Europe is one thing, cultural Europe is another thing.
Also we must consider things such as Rome not being purely mediterranean, as it stretched up Gaul to Britain. It was tradition in Britain far into its history to trace its lineage back to Rome. Also Germanic tribes were part of Roman legions. Tacitus wrote Germania, recommending Germanic values to Romans, and of course this work has been part of the European consciousness since, and so I see no reason not to see it as part of the European tradition.
 
Jan 2016
1,139
Victoria, Canada
There wasn't anything resembling a single "European Tradition" before the Early Modern Period at the earliest -- that label has been imposed backwards on pre-modern history by the inhabitants of a distinct and separate civilization, rooted in a medieval Germanic-Greco-Roman-Christian synthesis, which, despite its pretensions, was (and to an extent is) only one of many heirs and continuators of the Greco-Roman legacy. The development of a "European consciousness" is a distinctly modern phenomenon, completely alien to early-high medieval and ancient cultural, political, and societal contexts. Many aspects of modern "European" culture may be traceable back to the Romans and Greeks, but these peoples did not spawn a singular tradition -- be it "European", "Classical", or "Western" -- picked up by medieval Catholics and handed to the Western Europeans of the modern day. The idea among Western Europeans in particular that Rome was "us" and Rome's legacy "ours" is a deeply misplaced one not borne out by historical reality. It's a mental construct which has been very important for a very long time, but there is no actual straight line of continuity from Greece to Rome to Western Europe.

Western Europeans were only one of many groups who inherited and continued the classical tradition, if by pure coincidence the only ones to survive independent into the modern day. If you look at the year 700, for instance, almost all of Northern Europe was Pagan; Roman civilization, centered on Constantinople, was still around in force in the central and eastern Mediterranean, with the Emperors for the moment preserving Orthodoxy, ruling Rome, and appointing the Pope; Germanic peoples (who the Romans still considered barbarians) dominated a rural, war-torn, depopulated Western Europe and greatly influenced its culture and society towards its own; an Islamic Caliphate stretched across the Levant and North Africa, ruling and drawing from still-vibrant Roman, Romano-Coptic, and Romano-Syriac cultures from Damascus without yet having fully established its identity; and Christian kingdoms with aristocracies fluent in Greek stretched down through Nubia, having secured their independence from Islam. There was no "European Tradition" here, only a number of outside peoples and polities absorbing chunks of a formerly Mediterranean-spanning Roman civilization, and digesting its contents as it fit their purposes, while a reduced Roman Empire tried to secure its position and carve out a place for itself and its citizens in this new world.

A century later Charlemagne would clearly articulate a Germano-Latin claim to the Roman legacy -- and his own claim to the Roman imperial title -- beginning a tradition of thought continuing to this day, but he was not right; his claim did not actually inaugurate the birth of a European consciousness, or secure Western European ownership of the "European Tradition", but merely spread and solidified a set of self-serving ideas and ideologies to this end confined in their acceptance for centuries to Catholic Europe. The same Romans and Roman Empire recognized as such by the Germans just a century earlier were still around, and absolutely rejected those Frankish claims; as did the entire Islamic world, which never stopped referring to the Empire and its inhabitants as Roman. There were Nubian bishops, meanwhile, with a closer connection to the "Greco-" part of the Greco-Roman tradition than any denizen of Charles' court. We see again that Western Europeans have been long immersed in a worldview that has them picking up the torch of "Western Civilization" after the "Fall of Rome", but that this worldview does not match up whatsoever with a more objective examination of historical reality. The torch, to the extent that it existed, was still being held up perfectly well, and Western Europeans barely grabbed onto half of it, if that. It was only by the close of the 15th century that Western Europeans truly stood as the sole major continuators of the classical tradition, after the better part of a millennium of claiming such a title, and thus that something approaching a "European Tradition" can be spoken of in the singular, if maintained by a civilization very much distinct from that of Rome.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Far Flight
Jun 2016
85
A Shell of Steel
There wasn't anything resembling a single "European Tradition" before the Early Modern Period at the earliest -- that label has been imposed backwards on pre-modern history by the inhabitants of a distinct and separate civilization, rooted in a medieval Germanic-Greco-Roman-Christian synthesis, which, despite its pretensions, was (and to an extent is) only one of many heirs and continuators of the Greco-Roman legacy. The development of a "European consciousness" is a distinctly modern phenomenon, completely alien to early-high medieval and ancient cultural, political, and societal contexts. Many aspects of modern "European" culture may be traceable back to the Romans and Greeks, but these peoples did not spawn a singular tradition -- be it "European", "Classical", or "Western" -- picked up by medieval Catholics and handed to the Western Europeans of the modern day. The idea among Western Europeans in particular that Rome was "us" and Rome's legacy "ours" is a deeply misplaced one not borne out by historical reality. It's a mental construct which has been very important for a very long time, but there is no actual straight line of continuity from Greece to Rome to Western Europe.

Western Europeans were only one of many groups who inherited and continued the classical tradition, if by pure coincidence the only ones to survive independent into the modern day. If you look at the year 700, for instance, almost all of Northern Europe was Pagan; Roman civilization, centered on Constantinople, was still around in force in the central and eastern Mediterranean, with the Emperors for the moment preserving Orthodoxy, ruling Rome, and appointing the Pope; Germanic peoples (who the Romans still considered barbarians) dominated a rural, war-torn, depopulated Western Europe and greatly influenced its culture and society towards its own; an Islamic Caliphate stretched across the Levant and North Africa, ruling and drawing from still-vibrant Roman, Romano-Coptic, and Romano-Syriac cultures from Damascus without yet having fully established its identity; and Christian kingdoms with aristocracies fluent in Greek stretched down through Nubia, having secured their independence from Islam. There was no "European Tradition" here, only a number of outside peoples and polities absorbing chunks of a formerly Mediterranean-spanning Roman civilization, and digesting its contents as it fit their purposes, while a reduced Roman Empire tried to secure its position and carve out a place for itself and its citizens in this new world.

A century later Charlemagne would clearly articulate a Germano-Latin claim to the Roman legacy -- and his own claim to the Roman imperial title -- beginning a tradition of thought continuing to this day, but he was not right; his claim did not actually inaugurate the birth of a European consciousness, or secure Western European ownership of the "European Tradition", but merely spread and solidified a set of self-serving ideas and ideologies to this end confined in their acceptance for centuries to Catholic Europe. The same Romans and Roman Empire recognized as such by the Germans just a century earlier were still around, and absolutely rejected those Frankish claims; as did the entire Islamic world, which never stopped referring to the Empire and its inhabitants as Roman. There were Nubian bishops, meanwhile, with a closer connection to the "Greco-" part of the Greco-Roman tradition than any denizen of Charles' court. We see again that Western Europeans have been long immersed in a worldview that has them picking up the torch of "Western Civilization" after the "Fall of Rome", but that this worldview does not match up whatsoever with a more objective examination of historical reality. The torch, to the extent that it existed, was still being held up perfectly well, and Western Europeans barely grabbed onto half of it, if that. It was only by the close of the 15th century that Western Europeans truly stood as the sole major continuators of the classical tradition, after the better part of a millennium of claiming such a title, and thus that something approaching a "European Tradition" can be spoken of in the singular, if maintained by a civilization very much distinct from that of Rome.

Isn't that only relevant if the European tradition is considered as being a continuation of classical civilization? I wouldn't consider it to be so and I'm not sure that I recall anyone else who refers to the history of European culture as making such a claim.

To address something specific you said, about how bits and pieces of culture and ideas were selected and promoted to self-serving ends, I don't see that as in any way a problem for what I'm talking about. There isn't anything inherently wrong in having self-serving ends. Why would one promote ends which are not self-serving? I think it would be false if they denied something was European if it happened to be for self-serving reasons, but if it was about promoting certain aspects of what I'm referring to as the European tradition for self-serving purposes there is nothing inherently wrong with that. There is good reason to have a cultural tradition which one can access and use to move forward in the world and attain the ends we seek.
 
Last edited:
Jan 2016
1,139
Victoria, Canada
Isn't that only relevant if the European tradition is considered as being a continuation of classical civilization? I wouldn't consider it to be so and I'm not sure that I recall anyone else who refers to the history of European culture as making such a claim.
My point is that the "European Tradition" is only an at all applicable concept in a post-medieval context. "Europeans" in 1000, even Christian Europeans, were brought together by absolutely nothing in contrast to non-Europeans except for that very fact of geography. There was not a "European Tradition" in that era but several distinct traditions -- the Romano-Byzantine, the Germano-Latin, the Norse, the East, South, and West Slavic, the Islamic, etc. -- which existed in whole or in part on the European continent, and several more in Asia and Africa -- the Coptic, the Syriac, the Armenian, the Georgian, the Nubian, etc. -- which had just as close of a relationship with Romano-Christian culture. Western Europeans had and have a conviction that they're the exclusive continuators of some sort of "Western" or "European" tradition, supposedly birthed by Greece and Rome, but in reality their civilization matured half a millennium before Roman civilization even fell and was only one of many, many civilizations throughout the western Old World heavily influenced by Christianity and Greco-Roman culture. In general, what I'm getting at is that you can trace many aspects of the "European Tradition" of modernity back to Greco-Roman culture, but Greco-Roman culture itself was neither part of that tradition nor its inaugurator, and isn't something owned by modern Europe; and, additionally, that the "European Tradition" is a completely meaningless and anachronistic concept to extent further back than the 15th century, as several distinct traditions were prominent among even Christian Europeans.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Far Flight
Jan 2016
1,139
Victoria, Canada
To address something specific you said, about how bits and pieces of culture and ideas were selected and promoted to self-serving ends, I don't see that as in any way a problem for what I'm talking about. There isn't anything inherently wrong in having self-serving ends. Why would one promote ends which are not self-serving? I think it would be false if they denied something was European if it happened to be for self-serving reasons, but if it was about promoting certain aspects of what I'm referring to as the European tradition for self-serving purposes there is nothing inherently wrong with that. There is good reason to have a cultural tradition which one can access and use to move forward in the world and attain the ends we seek.
What I'm referring to -- the Carolingian ideology of translatio imperii and the rejection of the Romanitas of Greek-speakers -- was self-serving for the Franks and Germans (their rulers and aristocracy, specifically), not "Europe" or the "European Tradition" -- in fact, it drove a massive wedge between the two most prominent traditions within Europe, the Greco-Roman and the developing Germano-Latin, which would lead to reduced contact, much mutual enmity, and eventually a full-blown religious schism and the sack of Constantinople in the 4th Crusade. Again here you're imagining some kind of pan-European consciousness or culture where there simply wasn't one, and wouldn't be until modernity, only a variety of highly distinct traditions based entirely or partially in Europe (and often with far more in common with non-European cultures than cultures elsewhere on the continent).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Far Flight
Sep 2015
1,805
England
That sounds rough, but not unlikely. Most academia has a strong liberal or even further left-bias. I am currently in university for history and there is a very strong quasi-socialist interpretation and even bias in much of what we are learning.

As I realized when trying to formulate my first response in this thread, it is very difficult to discuss these ideas for a number of reasons. Firstly because one can drone on ad nauseam if one is not careful, but also because many of the isms develop over time and have different iterations. So if I say: Conservatism is such and such, it would be perfectly reasonable for someone to interject and tell me it is not so because such and such a figure, or at such and such a time, another idea was held to be conservative. Of course the issue of conservatism is also difficult because in one sense it can also mean to conserve that which is and because the status quo shifts over time then what one stands for can change. The most obvious example of what I mean is that conservatism once would have been very connected with preserving the interests of the monarch and the aristocracy, though that would seem highly out of place today, though I'm sure one would be considered conservative or at least right-wing for holding those views (though it would be more of an instating than conserving today).

I'm not even sure exactly where it would be most logical to begin the inception of conservative philosophy. Aristotle would, I'm sure, have much to interest conservatives. Wikipedia does not put Richard Hooker in the time line of British conservatism his contribution would be defending the primacy of the Church and Christian rule of the people.

Edmund Burke is generally considered one of the logical places to start. Edmund Burke was also concerned with defending the tradition of the English people which was really just the establish practice and values up until that point. He was concerned that society was not held together by abstract ideals but by living practices, customs including ways of thinking which aren't always consciously and rationally considered, but nonetheless provide order and stability and even meaning to a society.

Joseph de Maistre is considered to have radicalized the thoughts of Burke and even have been an early influence in the development of fascist ideas. I am definitely not an expert in de Maistre so if someone contradicts me then I will have to accept that contradiction, but from what I understand he advocated a more authoritarian Christianity and irrational belief in its tenets and a harsh soveriegn that would bring people into line if they threatened disorder in the society.

Another difficult thing about studying conservatism is that many important conservatives weren't necessarily philosophers but practical politicians. One prominent example is Klemens von Metternich who played a significant role in the establishment of the Vienna system of European nations after the Napoleonic wars. He was much concerned with defending the privileges of the aristocracy at the time.

I think that Americans have had a fairly significant role on conservatism today. I think this will sound strange because I want to bring up something like the Austrian school of economics (what am I talking about then?), because, among other things, the United States was important to establishing Corporate Personhood, or rights for corporations to act before the law as an individual. This might be a controversial view to take, but I think it has a very important bearing on conservative policy today. Another source, ironically, would be some socialist policy because it ended up strengthening some corporations because often they are subsidized by the government in order to eg. create jobs, maintain the jobs they have, and so on...

Though I was sort of vague about Burke, I think that he was one of the more significant roles in fleshing out what conservatism is to most people. He also supported the ideas of Adam Smith, despite those ideas generally being considered as a cornerstone of liberalism, and I think it could be argued that the commercial society engendered more change than conservation of old ways.
Interestingly enough, in the book i mentioned previously, the chapter on Liberalism, for all its extent and depth, drew no links whatsoever to classical liberalism. Just another example of your observation about differences of definition, and over time, and place! Clearly Conservative thinking in the U.K. draws on Aristotle, Locke and then Burke. But the Tamworth Manifesto and the change in direct party political terms to being the Conservative Party, rather the the Tory party of yore, is a clear marker in the time line of history, and which ties in with your nice description of 'the commercial society engender[ing]...change [rather than necessarily]...'conservation of old ways'. Literally 'change' is one of the main points of Conservatism, in the U.K.

De Maistre was a key advcate of the counter-enlightenment so can't be of much relevance to modern Conservative thinking. That died a death during the Whig Supremacy of the 1700s.

You described Burke as, '[1]concerned that society was not held together by abstract ideals but by living practices, [2]customs including ways of thinking which aren't always consciously and rationally considered, but nonetheless provide order and stability and even meaning to a society.'

[1] must be considered sensible or normal, and even arrived at by Socratic Reason/reasoning. Unless the contentious issue is the phrase 'held together' ?
[2] sounds very familiar... an example might be the nation state, no less!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Far Flight
Jun 2016
85
A Shell of Steel
tl;dr version: I think your posts are very good and relevant. I am not saying that my view of the European tradition was held in the past. I have been discussing why I include certain things within my conception of the European traditon, and that might have been confused with making arguments that this tradition has been understood in the past in the way I am framing it.

What I'm referring to -- the Carolingian ideology of translatio imperii and the rejection of the Romanitas of Greek-speakers -- was self-serving for the Franks and Germans (their rulers and aristocracy, specifically), not "Europe" or the "European Tradition" -- in fact, it drove a massive wedge between the two most prominent traditions within Europe, the Greco-Roman and the developing Germano-Latin, which would lead to reduced contact, much mutual enmity, and eventually a full-blown religious schism and the sack of Constantinople in the 4th Crusade. Again here you're imagining some kind of pan-European consciousness or culture where there simply wasn't one, and wouldn't be until modernity, only a variety of highly distinct traditions based entirely or partially in Europe (and often with far more in common with non-European cultures than cultures elsewhere on the continent).
My point is that the "European Tradition" is only an at all applicable concept in a post-medieval context. "Europeans" in 1000, even Christian Europeans, were brought together by absolutely nothing in contrast to non-Europeans except for that very fact of geography. There was not a "European Tradition" in that era but several distinct traditions -- the Romano-Byzantine, the Germano-Latin, the Norse, the East, South, and West Slavic, the Islamic, etc. -- which existed in whole or in part on the European continent, and several more in Asia and Africa -- the Coptic, the Syriac, the Armenian, the Georgian, the Nubian, etc. -- which had just as close of a relationship with Romano-Christian culture. Western Europeans had and have a conviction that they're the exclusive continuators of some sort of "Western" or "European" tradition, supposedly birthed by Greece and Rome, but in reality their civilization matured half a millennium before Roman civilization even fell and was only one of many, many civilizations throughout the western Old World heavily influenced by Christianity and Greco-Roman culture. In general, what I'm getting at is that you can trace many aspects of the "European Tradition" of modernity back to Greco-Roman culture, but Greco-Roman culture itself was neither part of that tradition nor its inaugurator, and isn't something owned by modern Europe; and, additionally, that the "European Tradition" is a completely meaningless and anachronistic concept to extent further back than the 15th century, as several distinct traditions were prominent among even Christian Europeans.
Very good replies. Thanks for taking part in the discussion!

I do think we are speaking about different things. I hope that doesn't seem like I'm trying to undermine what you're saying because I think what you have written is well conceived and everyone interested in this thread should read it and consider it, because it does have a very large bearing on what I mean by the European tradition.

You said a couple of things that I would like to address but I think they can be most briefly and clearly summed up by this line you wrote:

Again here you're imagining some kind of pan-European consciousness or culture where there simply wasn't one
This is why I think we're talking about different things. Again I think what you're saying is absolutely relevant to the discussion and very well said and worth considering. But I am not imagining the kind of pan-European consciousness in the way you think. I do think that various historical figures have referred to themselves as European or the geographical unit as European - this I did say, but I am not saying that in the past Europeans thought in the way that I am attempting to do when I wrote my original post and am examining what I am examining on my blog. I feel that it is rather something that there isn't much precedent for. Studies have been written on European culture, by that I mean modern ones not historical texts.

Perhaps there is something confusing in this. Because I have been making arguments and discussing why I include things in the European tradition, and therefore it maybe sounds like I am arguing that a consciousness of the construct I am using today has been used in the same way throughout history. I am not making that claim. I did say that begining with Charlemagne there was an understanding of Europeans as a group that differed from what was before. Do you disagree with that? It doesn't mean that the understanding of it at that time was the understanding I am trying to discuss today, and I didn't mean to make that claim.

I don't think the criticism that there is something arbitrary about my categorization is unfounded. There is, because there is even something arbitrary about national boarders, especially looked at in historical contexts. What I am engaging in today (tracking a European tradition) is not itself part of the European tradition, or insofar as it has precedents it does not mean that I and previous individuals to have done so fundamentally agree about what is included and the inheritance of that tradition.

That being said, though I admit to a degree of arbitrariness, I do not think that the categorization is arbitrary to the degree where it is simply willy-nilly and includes potentially anything. There are various reasons to include something in the European tradition in the sense I am doing now. I think that arguments can be made about what does and doesn't fit. Like I said, I think what you have said is very important in its own right, but I don't think it has bearing one what I am expressing here.

If you have further criticism of this post I would still be very happy to hear it an engage with you. If you think there is some reason that my whole project is in some way subject to some internal contradiction which makes it useless or even something which would distort history, I would like to hear that and become aware of it too, if you wish to share such a view.
 
Last edited:
Jan 2016
1,139
Victoria, Canada
Perhaps there is something confusing in this. Because I have been making arguments and discussing why I include things in the European tradition, and therefore it maybe sounds like I am arguing that a consciousness of the construct I am using today has been used in the same way throughout history. I am not making that claim. I did say that begining with Charlemagne there was an understanding of Europeans as a group that differed from what was before. Do you disagree with that? It doesn't mean that the understanding of it at that time was the understanding I am trying to discuss today, and I didn't mean to make that claim.
I would disagree with that assessment. Charlemagne became known to modern Europeans as the "Father of Europe", but this is only in hindsight, and with an eye to a very specific region of Europe. There wasn't an understanding, under Charlemagne or for several centuries after, of Europeans as a distinct group, either from non-Europeans or the previous inhabitants of Europe. Latin Christians in Western Europe increasingly began viewing themselves as a distinct group, but this was largely from other Europeans -- the Romans, namely, or as they began calling them "Greeks", as well as Pagan Germanic and Slavic peoples -- not as Europeans in contrast to Asians and Africans. Additionally, from the Roman perspective most of Western Europe had been lost to the Barbarians, and so they increasingly felt disconnected from its inhabitants and their customs. Overall, Charlemagne brought one collection of Europeans together and pushed others further apart, without ever really making any statements of European identity.

To get to the crux of the issue in the rest of the comment, I don't necessarily disagree with the minutiae of your observations, but I disagree with the basic idea that there was any collection of values, customs, or convictions common to "Europeans" that could collectively be termed the "European Tradition" in a pre-modern context. There were values, customs, and convictions common to Romans, there were values, customs, and convictions common to Muslims, there were values, customs, and convictions common to Latin Christians, and there were values, customs, and convictions common to Germanic Pagans, but there's no justification for lumping any of these under the label of "European tradition" until at least the 15th century, by which time the other traditions had faded and the Latin Christian had grown to dominate the continent. What you've been doing is tracking the Greco-Roman and then the medieval Germano-Latin traditions under the label of the "European Tradition". These are two very distinct -- if connected -- civilizations which coexisted as such for centuries, and neither matched up with the boundaries of Europe nor thought of themselves as European in anything approaching modern terms. There are thus simply no accurate observations that can actually be made about the "European Tradition" in an ancient or medieval context, because such observations will either apply only to a small portion of Europe or extend well beyond it -- anything that applies to Latin Christianity will extend only to that portion of Europe, for example, while anything that applies to Christianity in general will apply everywhere from Armenia to Ethiopia, and the same is true of art, architecture, language, the reception of classical literature, societal norms and structures, etc. Observations can certainly be made about developments within medieval Germano-Latin culture, which by-and-large goes on to form the basis for the more broadly European culture of the Early Modern Period, but it will never be accurate to describe these as developments of the "European Tradition" in a medieval context.

In conclusion, then, the goal of the project to examine the roots of the current European Tradition and its relationship with Islam is a perfectly valid one, but the concept of a pan-European culture or consciousness is a distinctly modern phenomenon that is fundamentally inapplicable in a medieval or ancient context. It would therefore be more productive to focus on the different historical traditions, within Europe and without, that contributed to the genesis of the European Tradition -- most notably the Christian, the Greco-Roman, and the Germanic -- and from which that tradition drew its structures, concepts, styles, and values. You've already been doing the groundwork for this, but you've been trying to fit these diverse contributors to the European Tradition under its label and extend it back to classical antiquity, which is not a tenable framework in the face of historical reality. It is, in general, an interesting project, but it could make a much stronger argument, in my opinion, with a bit of a shift in the angle from which the history of the European Tradition is analyzed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Far Flight

deaf tuner

Ad Honoris
Oct 2013
14,533
Europix
I think it would be false if they denied something was European if it happened to be for self-serving reasons, but if it was about promoting certain aspects of what I'm referring to as the European tradition for self-serving purposes there is nothing inherently wrong with that. There is good reason to have a cultural tradition which one can access and use to move forward in the world and attain the ends we seek.
Nitpicking again (You'll get used to it in time ... or maybe not.... )

A good part of culture and tradition of populations hasn't any "purposes", it simply is. It has its own life and its own ways.

If You have the opportunity to look a bit closer into the folklore (especially Central/Eastern/Southern Europe, as it is/was much better preserved) You will be astonished how much was/is still there from an ante-Christian substratum for example.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Far Flight