In discussing whether or not Western Civilization/ Culture is worth defending, saving, rebuilding; there is often confusion regarding what it is, and to what extent distinctive.
I tend to assume that when it comes to what might be termed "the arts" - literature, poetry, visual arts, architecture, dance, music etc - there is a kind of relativity between civilizations and cultures; in the sense that each produces what it wants; and it seems overly subjective to assert the superiority of one over others.
Looked at across time, and across history; it certainly seems that some bits of some civilizations (e.g. the music, the architecture) are better than the same bits of others; yet the cross-cultural cosmopolitanism that is able to make such comparisons is itself not really a creative or generative culture; but a second order kind of thing - an aspect of cultural criticism rather than creativity.
At any rate; I find it unconvincing to assert any distinctive superiority of Western Civilization when it comes to the arts and humanities. There is superiority of my civilization for me, and for people like me; but I would not expect people of a different kind from different civilizations to see things the same way.
But Western Civilization since the 17th century does have a qualitative superiority over all others (past and until the recent present) which is science: more exactly, in terms of science as a "social system".
There have been in many times and places, and still are, individual real scientists; or even duos, or small and short-lasting groups of scientists; but it was only in Western Civilization that science became a structured and multi-generational activity.
It was only in Western Christendom that the necessary ethic of honesty; the truth-seeking and truth-speaking of and between scientists, became large scale and sustained.
Therefore science in the West became qualitatively more powerful and wide ranging than at any other time or place.
I think this can now be seen clearly because science is dead - or at least real science is dead. A bureaucratic professional research activity continues, now fully integrated with global totalitarianism; but this is not what used to be science, it is not real science.
Science has died for lack of the reason it began: the ethic of inter-scientist honesty that created and sustained science has gone. So-called modern "science" is dishonest, untruthful, selectively exaggerated, deliberately misleading - from top to bottom and in external relations: therefore it is not science. It Does Not Work.
Science as a social activity has dwindled to near-nothingness, and we have now reverted to the science of individual persons.
Of course; science was always double-edged in its goodness. It was exceptionally honest; but only about its chosen subject.
Science is based on models of reality, not reality; and like all models this means it is distorted at best and deluded at worst - yet unable (from "within" science) to recognize its own radical limitations and potential evils.
(i.e. To stay science, science absolutely needs scientists to have an external viewpoint from which to evaluate "science", and keep it honest.)
When the West, when scientists, ceased to be Christian and Christianity was forgotten; there was no ultimate reason for scientists to be honest - not even about science; so over several decades science became, briefly, net-evil - before it killed itself from corruption and fakery.
My understanding is therefore that it was science that - in world historical terms - was the distinctive good of Western civilization; but that is dead and gone. While Westerners like myself love much of my civilization; after the death of real science The West no longer has anything distinctive and good to offer The World. So its demise will not be mourned by the world.
Note: Although Western Civ an old topic here; this particular post was triggered by Bonald's recent reflections at the Orthosphere.
