Hacker News Reader

Thanks for this comment.

Spengler referred to the Medieval Era as Spring because that was when what he saw as the key cultural forms first emerged -- such as linear perspective in painting, and soaring Gothic cathedrals - all of which he saw as manifesting a new cultural tendency to reach out to infinity which later seeped into maths and music.

For Spengler, this sense and longing for infinitely wide and profound 3D space marked out the Western individual.

I think what constitues the West is constantly changing. The historical base is Western Europe. If W. Europe and the US diverge in ideology over the next few decades (not necessarily a bad thing) then as a category the West will shrink back to the base. Possibly a bit larger if the EU stays intact or integrates further, as I hope it does.

Democracy didn't really become a thing until after the Baroque era. Maybe democracy failing will bring us back to the "golden age" of the West, like the medieval/renaissance era.

Democracy was certainly a thing before the Baroque era. A lot of old school "kings" were chosen by groups, with varying degrees of how large that group is, e.g. Ancient Athenian democracy.

What you're talking about is European/Western Liberal Democracy, which may involve voting, but has a different set of assumptions and serves different rights.

The period when Spengler published his work (1918 and 1922) was a period of deep pessimism for obvious reasons.

At that time, the Baroque era was actually pretty close, less than 200 years ago.

The medieval era, while atrocious in the aspects you mention, was also the start of the liberation of cities and the beginning of some sort of "somewhat free" commerce.

So it does not surprise me that he'd name it the spring. After all, the spring is not an all-pleasant season.

What does surprise me is that German romanticism in the 19th century would already fall in the winter period. But I suspect that he blames Marx, the revolutions of 1848 for the decline and ignores the staggering achievements in art, literature, mathematics and physics in that era.

To expand, I disagree with the underlying premise of his/similar works.

That somehow all culture exist in a perpetual state of competition, and the spread/growth of one necessitate the decline of other. While cultures usually can claim a direct ancestry down the ages, the truth is that the cultures and norms existing today in different part of the world is MUCH closer to each other than say their direct ancestral culture 500 years ago - and it happened because cultures are NOT in a competition, rather it adapts to the new technologies and outside cultural influences. As a result the world is closer together than it ever has, and that's a good thing.

>That somehow all culture exist in a perpetual state of competition, and the spread/growth of one necessitate the decline of other.

I don't think that's an opinion to agree or disagree with. Historically it's an observable fact.

Historically it's a what? For some reason Japanese have a cultural tradition of eating KFC on Christmas Eve, did they just lose the culture war?

Yes, twice, once in the time of Commodore Perry, when they were humiliatingly forced to open to western powers.

Then, after they powered up, and tried to ensure this doesn't happen again, in 1945, with Hiroshima and Nagasaki and their humiliating surrender and occupation. They turned into western culture as a response, and it took them until the 80s to shake some of this off...

I'm pretty sure the premise you cite wasn't his view. For Spengler, cultures were attached to a specific location or landscape -- the idea of them spreading doesn't make sense in that context. I also don't recall any discussion of competition. Here's a direct quote:

"A Culture is born in the moment when a great soul awakens out of the proto-spirituality ( dem urseelenhaften Zustande ) of ever childish humanity, and detaches itself, a form from the formless, a bounded and mortal thing from the boundless and enduring. It blooms on the soil of an exactly definable landscape, to which plant-wise it remains bound. It dies when this soul has actualized the full sum of its possibilities in the shape of peoples, languages, dogmas, arts, states, sciences, and reverts into the proto-soul."

Spengler, Oswald. Decline of the West: Volumes 1 and 2 (Kindle Locations 2294-2297). Kindle Edition.

>I can't help notice how decline of democracy is painted as the 'end of the West', meanwhile Medieval Era was the 'spring of the West'. There is no democracy in Medieval West, there were kings, theocracies, crusades, burning of heretics and women.

That's because what's important is the vector, not the absolute state. Towards the end of the medieval era we saw the emergence of all kinds of positive developments, plus increased prosperity, order, etc. And of course it was followed by the Renaissance.

Similarly, now we see all kinds of degeneration, including the most major: the western countries fall down several steps in the top 10 of GDP, giving their place to Asian countries. The West increasingly loses importance economy wise, and this also means declining standard of living, infrastructure, forward momentum, political discontent (Trump is an example of that), and cultural relevance. It's a slow process, which will take decades or even a century to be completed, but it will be completed.

>So here comes the real question: What is the west?

Historically/Geographically, the Europeans and their ilk in the USA/Canada.

Culturally, the mix of Roman law / Christianity etc as it progressed through to the Renaissance, Enlightenment and on to the 20th century.

Economically, sometimes "westernized" places like Japan and South Korea are included (and Australia/NZ).

In any case, it's mostly: what's not culturally Asian, African, Latin American, or Arabic.

> Culturally, the west now is way more different then the west in 1500 as versus the East today.

Yes, but that's neither here nor there. Physiologically, mentally, etc. a 60 year old is more similar to another 60 year old than to his 5 year old self. But despite that the 60 year old and the 5 year old are the same person - and share their development history.

>Why is it that people start feeling that the west will pass - and that it somehow coincide with demographic changes

Because that's how it happened for other similar cultures/countries in the past. Including for a succession within the west: In the 20th century Britain as an "empire" declined and gave way to the USA, for example.

Also because it has already began giving its place to developing economies that have began to surpass it, and have more momentum.

>US have been through much worse, from the America First nazi sympathizer of the 30s to McCarthyism of the 50s, that's not even mentioning the civil war of the century before that

Those are not "much worse". Those are historical developments in a country with a positive momentum vector and huge development (economic, population, global relevance, etc) during and afterwards.

>We as humans tend to characterize what we're currently moving through as more significant than they are - put it into historical perspective and it could just be a 'nah'

In history few powers (or superpowers) remain in their place for long.