Of course it's worth studying. It should mean everything to us. It is everything to us. The people who should be studying it are those ignorant, brainwashed fools who benefit from it, but who are told by the likes of the Marxist running the ANU and other universities how 'bad' it is. The ANU has shown clearly who our enemies are: academics and the political class which has rolled over rather than fight for our entire existence as the best civilisation in the world. It's time to look seriously at the huge sums taxpayers are putting into bankrolling their enemies.

Sounds like a bit of a Mickey Mouse degree to me. Although compared to some of the crap on offer at our universities, it's not so bad. I fail to see what all the fuss is about.

Don Aiken would only receive 30 Points for this essay at the University of Sydney.

He would get marked down 10 Points for the use of any word containing "Man."

His sins;
1. Businessman.
2. Businessmen.
3. Human.
4. Humanity,
5. Humanities.
6. Humanistic.
7. Mandatory.

Probably more as he used some words twice.

How's that for Academic Freedom & the advancement (opps) of education in Australia.

Now I'll wait for Steelie & Ilk to support the Universities support of the removal of these words & the denunciation of the Western Civilization Course.

If western civilisation is so bad, perhaps someone could suggest one that is better.

This is ridiculous. What society doesn't provide for the study of itself, ideally warts and all ? Yes, we can rant until the cows come home about witchcraft, burning of heretics at the stake, slavery, imperialism, fascism (in all its forms, Left and Right), the greedy nature of capitalism, etc., etc. But as Big Nana says, in what ways are other 'civilisations' better ?

Why can't we study all of them - well, actually, we would be doing just that since it would be impossible to study Western Civilisation in isolation: it wouldn't be possible to talk about ancient greek mathematics without acknowledging there influence of India, for example; or the contribution to ancient maths of Egyptian advances in geometry. And so much of ancient philosophies and modern religions owe a great deal to Zoroastrianism, the religion of Mesopotamia and Persia. And so on.

And how could we study the Crusades without mentioning Islamic aggression and superior military strategy across the Middle East and North Africa ? How could we study early military history without noting the development of cannon by the Ottomans ? How could we study the history of, say, accounting without mentioning the activities of the Jews of Cairo ?

Actually, I would love to get involved in a course which critiqued all civilisations without mercy, the warts and all of ALL civilisations. It would probably have to be a full three- or four-year degree plus PG. But it would be incredibly valuable to know where the rights that we take for granted - e.g. the right to criticise Western civilisation - come from.

But, please, no red herrings about how such a course would only celebrate the West and denigrate the Rest. It wouldn't have to be like that at all - in fact, can you really imagine the students of today putting up with an uncritical presentation of Western civilisation ? They'd tear lecturers limb from limb.

Joe

Loudmouth:can you really imagine the students of today putting up with an uncritical presentation of Western civilisation ? They'd tear lecturers limb from limb.

Did you mean their Lecturers would tear the Students limb from limb?

Yes, we should study western civilisation in warts and all review!

If only to understand where it went wrong? e.g. The phenomena of the fascists/Nazis and communism?

And the part greed and trickle down economics and extreme exploitive capitalism has been so demonstrably damaging on the social cooperative compact, we call, western civilisation. As the cause of the Great Depression or the other opposite example worthy of note. The unprecedented post-war prosperity!

Always providing we look at it minus the blinkers and the ideological imperatives that seek other self-gratifying outcomes and bias confirmation.
Alan B.

How can you study Western Civilisation when truth is out and moral relativism is in? Watch the drum, q&a or even Waleed and you can see the kool aid of one very sick narrative of Western Civilisation has been swallowed. Just ask the tax payer funded Yasmin who has uni qualifications how good Islam is for women. It seems the vast majority of Indigenous doing really well from Western Civilisation were rescued ones. Yeah no hope of our lying deceitful or cowardly lecturers teaching what is true. In fact few if any would be employed within the swamp.

Runner,

You put your finger on something: how could such a course involve studying the development of women's rights without making comparisons with other societies' neglect of them ? Including traditional societies everywhere, Aboriginal, Maori, Scottish, etc. And by extension, the study of the development of any of the rights that we take for granted now ? Almost inadvertently, students would have to draw comparisons with what has gone or (or not) in other civilisations when they examine any aspect whatsoever of Western civilisation.

For example, the development of the printing press: initiated in China, and advanced (moveable type, etc.) in Europe in the fifteenth century, by 1600, a billion books had been published there (according to Prof. Jack Goody, the foremost historian of literacy). When was the first printing press set up in the Muslim world ? 1824, in Constantinople, primarily to print the Koran.

Any study of any civilisation would inevitably be comparative and, to be of any use, critical, warts and all. It would be impossible to teach an uncritical study of Western civilisation in any Australian university and, since it should be a cornerstone of our education system, that's how it should be. So please, no red herrings about how it would be nothing but conservative and celebratory. Hardly.

Joe

.

Yeah Joe

imagine some of the law, the giving of young girls to old uncles, the racism between skin colours, pay back etc was exposed for what is was and still is in some cases. Oh that's right Windshuttle reported accurately on this and look at how they treated him.

I noticed Waleed Aly's name above. Apparently he was disgusted by De Niro's foul-mouthed attack on Trump. Wonders will never cease.

The various essays on this site provide a comprehensive assessment of the state of Western "civilization" in the "21st century".

http://www.beezone.com/news.html

Plus this essay on the Western Omega strategy:

"Actions in the mode of Omega (or effective physical, emotional, and intellectual "creativity", can achieve many individual and collective goals, but, on its own bereft of True Wisdom, the Omega strategy eventually leads to the exploitation, degradation, and suppression of the individual and Humankind altogether".

Which is exactly the situation we are now in.

In another essay he points out that humankind and human culture has been reduced to rubble, and that we are collectively treating the Divine Gift as mud.

Two more essays on how/why the much vaunted Western mind has reduced everything to rubble, or destroyed the Divine Gift
http://www.beezone.com/AdiDa/Aletheon/ontranscendingtheinsubordinatemind.html

http://www.beezone.com/AdiDa/jesusandme.html

Jordan Peterson :

"Intellectuals have become prisoners of their own imagination".

That to me is not the shame of it. The shame of it is, the majority must live with the consequences of their mad dream.

Definitely well named Daffy Duck.

Yes. Western Civilization is very much worth studying. However based on the cost it takes to go to collage, the merits of any college studies has to be practical and job related. Education costs too much to invest in it for the sake of just learning new ideas.

That's where the rub gets in the way in my opinion. The study of western civilization is only practical in a politics degree or a history degree. Both of which could be useful for teachers in highschool, but otherwise unfortunately not worth the dollar amount in a university. Which is sad because it is a subject that is worth knowing. Knowing the contributions of your society is one thing that people are casually exposed to. But knowing the contributions of Western civilization as a whole? That would be worth it to study.

I don't think the study should only be the merits of western civilization, but also the hardships and pitfalls that have popped up through history. That said, there's definitely more merits then shortcomings, so no worries on that part.

Questions;

1. Who gets to design The Study of Western Civilization content?

2. What employment opportunities are gained from The Study of Western Civilization?

3. For whom?

4. Is it just another feel good Course for Forever Students?

Western Civilisation has brought about some great positive changes. Unfortunately, these changes have been abused & the sad result is that this abuse is about to bring an end to this Civilisation. The starting gun for the demise was fired when academics were permitted to enter politics. Pragmatism was thrown out the window & theory became the mentality.
Is this worth studying ? Of course, as long as it opens eyes & minds for a more caring humanity.

//The starting gun for the demise was fired when academics were permitted to enter politics.//

In 1689, when Sir Isaac Newton (definitely academic) became a member of the English parliament?

That's going back quite a way, individual. And I'm not even sure if he was the first academic to enter politics, he's just the earliest I know of.

Toni lavis,
Isaac Newton was a brilliant brain, scientist & scholar, don't insult his memory by putting him to the dumbed-down level of today's academics. You can safely do that with Rudd & Abbott et al.

//Isaac Newton was a brilliant brain, scientist & scholar, don't insult his memory by putting him to the dumbed-down level of today's academics.//

I think we may be operating on differing definitions of 'academic' here. I'm using the standard definition: 'a teacher or scholar in a university or other institute of higher education'. A definition that definitely covers a former Lucasian Professor and President of the Royal Society.

I suspect that when you refer to academics, you may be referring to a narrow subset of arts academics whose political views you don't agree with. But that's a weird and arbitrary definition. By any reasonable metric, physics professors (and other scientifically inclined greybeards) are academics too.

Frankly, I think it's a bit rich for you to be insulting hard working academics for being 'dumbed-down', when I doubt that you have more than a rudimentary grasp of physics.

And I think it would be counter-productive, not to mention undemocratic, too declare parliament off limits to people with a scientific background. A few more nerds in the parliament would make a nice change from all the lawyers. Can you imagine a world where the minister for science actually has science qualifications and professional experience in the field, and isn't just some career politician? It's easy if you try.

Reading this article its understandable why the ANU wants to retain its autonomy. Going back to 400 BCE, really? Equality, liberty, fraternity,' may well be the culmination of Western civilisation. When did universal suffrage and education kick in? Was it given by the privileged and those educated in the classics, or did the workers have to revolt and/or strike for it? Did these same classes liberate the nations colonised by Western civilisation or did the people of those nations have to rise up and fight for their freedom? Practically every freedom we have today is a result of people fighting the educated and the privileged. So if the ANU decide their autonomy is more precious than being bought by a new class of educated and privileged white folk, they are behaving in the way I would expect that a mature Western civilisation institution would. If the billion dollar funded Ramsey Centre for Western Civilisation believes so much in Western civilisation, then let it donate unconditionally to the ANU and/or other Western universities. Or does it still believe in that common Western civilisation practice going back thousands of years, that the privileged have the right to use their wealth to buy influence?

Anyone with half a brain realises that the numbers of people wanting to come to nations built upon Christian Judea ethic are massive. Those wanting to go to Islamic and Marxist nations are next to zero.

Toni Lavis,
I know you understand the gist in my rambling, you just can't afford to admit it. There are engineers who build bridges & ships & planes & dams etc. Then there are engineers who can't to these things but they're still allowed to call themselves engineers. There are Doctors who find remedies to illness & there are Doctors who can't even diagnose a cold.
Just as there are the Academics I'm talking about. The ones who develop formulae of substance & then there are Academics who can't even get a simple survey right.
I prefer to call the former scholars so as not to insult them by calling them Academics.
99% of those so-called "Academics" who join the ALP simply get there by telling the party how intelligent they are because they've been to Uni.
The Conseratives fortunately, don't have that problem but manage to recruit some similar types from other circles.
Pauline Hanson doesn't have an academic background, she has a better one, at least she could make Fish & Chips, Turnbull & Shorten couldn't make you a cheese sandwich let alone run a chook raffle.

Indy: The Conservatives fortunately, don't have that problem but manage to recruit some similar types from other circles.
Pauline Hanson doesn't have an academic background, she has a better one, at least she could make Fish & Chips, Turnbull & Shorten couldn't make you a cheese sandwich let alone run a chook raffle.

You certainly got that right.

"Anyone with half a brain realises that the numbers of people wanting to come to nations built upon Christian Judea ethic are massive."

So all those emigrants from South and Central American nations colonised, indoctrinated and built on the Christian Judea ethic, whatever that is, are leaving because?

This supposed ethic has been around for over 2,000 years. I say supposed because most of that 2,000 years, the nations that claimed to follow it could hardly claim they were different to the rest of humanity. They slaughtered each other, both internally and externally. They exterminated indigenous people. I know people can be slow to catch on, but really, taking over a thousand years to understand the likes of what it means to be equal, what peace to all men is, would suggest that this mystical ethic had very little to do with us attaining the human rights we currently have.

//I know you understand the gist in my rambling, you just can't afford to admit it.//

No, not really. Is English your second language? Because you don't seem to be that good at expressing your views in plain English which make sense to everybody.

At any rate, the only meanings I can obtain are from what you write. I don't believe in any of that psychic crap: nobody can read your mind, individual. It's up to you to express your ideas as coherently as possible, and then correct misunderstandings when they arise.

//There are engineers who build bridges & ships & planes & dams etc. Then there are engineers who can't to these things but they're still allowed to call themselves engineers.//

So... the only real engineers are civil, marine, and aeronautical engineers? See, again, this seems a very narrow and arbitrary definition. What about chemical engineers, who design vast industrial chemical manufacturing plants? What about electrical engineers, who design the massive high voltage substations our electrical grid relies upon? What about the mechanical engineers? What about the geotechnical engineers?

This is what I mean about barriers to communication: when most of us talk about engineers we mean, well, engineers. Whereas you're referring to a limited subset of engineers, with that subset being defined by parameters that we're not privy to because you've just pulled them out of your fundament.

//There are Doctors who find remedies to illness & there are Doctors who can't even diagnose a cold.//

Jesus, what kind of retard needs a doctor to tell them they have a cold? I know when I have a cold because I get a runny nose and a cough. I know that it's a viral infection and that the best medicine they can prescribe for it is a placebo because I'm not a moron. I know that it won't kill me because I have a robust immune system. And I know that if I go and sit in a doctors waiting room with a slightly compromised immune system there is a greater risk of me picking up whatever 'orrible plague...

...they might be carrying and very high chance of me passing on my cold.

In short: what kind of f%^king retard goes to the doctor's for a cold? No wonder Medicare costs are blowing out. F$#king hypochondriacs, why they can't they just catch some nasty disease and drop dead already?

//Just as there are the Academics I'm talking about. The ones who develop formulae of substance & then there are Academics who can't even get a simple survey right.//

Yes, but in the history of science there have been way, way more scientists who don't have any 'formulae of substance' for which they are well known, than are those that have. And who the hell determines what a 'formulae of substance' is anyway?

What about the scientists who didn't develop any 'formulae of substance', but still made important discoveries? What about those who nobly, tirelessly, dedicated their lives do discovering Sweet FA? No important breakthroughs, no paradigm-shifting theories... just a lot of plodding about doing dull, un-noteworthy experiments that slowly but surely chip away at the coalface of ignorance. Don't those guys count for something?

There are lot more scientists than there are Nobels or Lucasian Chairs up for grabs. We only ever really hear about the best of the best in mainstream media, but that doesn't mean that all the others are rubbish. They're just not as good as the best, in the same way that a man that runs last in a race against Usain Bolt is still much faster than you or I will ever be or have ever been.

//99% of those so-called "Academics" who join the ALP simply get there by telling the party how intelligent they are because they've been to Uni.//

And suddenly this has turned into a rant against the ALP. How dull. You remind me of South Park's parody of Whoopi Goldberg (substitute the word 'Labor' for 'Republicans'):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGl1CCprCeU

Shame you don't have any canned laughter to back you up. You could sound as clever as she does.

Toni lavis,
Are you still a student ?

TL: the only real engineers are civil, marine, and aeronautical engineers? See, again, this seems a very narrow and arbitrary definition. What about chemical engineers. etc,.

I gather that they are the people that he was talking about. They are inclusive by definition.

The Academics he was talking about were the Navel Gazers & Arts Academics, etc,. Their opinions are just as good as mine, yet people are supposed to look upon them with awe because they have a degree in crap.

//Are you still a student ?//

No.

//I gather that they are the people that he was talking about.//

//Then there are engineers who can't to these things but they're still allowed to call themselves engineers.//

So who are these mysterious engineers that aren't really engineers, then?

//The Academics he was talking about were the Navel Gazers & Arts Academics//

No, they're not engineers. They're Arts academics. And frankly, I do find some of them to be a superfluous waste of space. But they are not the sort of academics individual and I were discussing; we were discussing engineers and scientists - academics in the STEM fields. Who, by the way, definitely still count as academics. You're comparing apples with oranges.

TL: we were discussing engineers and scientists - academics in the STEM fields. Who, by the way, definitely still count as academics. You're comparing apples with oranges.

I agree with you there. Science & Engineering (I include Mathematics in that) are valuable & useful pursuits. The Arts are no better than Grades 13 to 15. (Navel Gazers, etc) These are the people that espouse how the rest of us should live & what to believe. When it's boils down, what ever they say is just their personal belief depending on what side of the fence they have been brainwashed to sit on. Most of what they say has no relationship with the real world.

There are university-based Centres for the Study of Chinese and Islamic Civilisations around the country. Australia is a Western country, the product of Western civilisation, its many goods and its many bads. All civilisations have bads, and probably always will, given that we will always live in an imperfect world.

Obviously any course in Western civilization, as with any study of any civilisation, will be a critical study, not a worshipful, uncritical one. I can't imagine any such uncritical course surviving uncriticised in any Australian university, and that would be a wonderful thing. Ironically, that very criticism is a product ultimately of our long and bitter history of the development of the rights of free expression which, after all, is to a large extent, a unique product of Western civilisation. I'm not sure how much criticism there might be in China of courses in Chinese civilisation, or in Muslim universities of courses in Islamic civilisation. Exegesis, yes, but criticism, may not. But that's up to the people in China and Muslim countries.

On the front page of today's Australian, a survey has found that two-thirds of Australians are in favour of such a course, including 55 % of Greens voters. Interestingly, 11 % of Coalition voters opposed the idea. One wonders, what are they afraid of ? Indeed, what is anybody who opposes such a course afraid of ?

Joe

The irrefutable realities of western civilization, irrespective of Arts or Sciences, are that of the disciplines, such as they are, there are only three distinctive social categories, in order of contribution,
there are the 'doers'
there are the 'thinkers looking for a doer'
and there are the 'thinkers waiting to be discovered by a doer'
Anyone outside these parameters are the mentally challenged whose numbers are steadily rising, in part by social engineering.

Donations to further this study are gratefully accepted

Come to think of it perhaps we should study the gradual demise of western society rather than civilisation ?

Obviously there is bias against Western civilisation.
Study of any other civilisation or society would be done without question.

The fact that we are having this conversation, means there is a biased mindset against Western Civilisation in our universities.
But that has been evident for a long time.

As long as only the bad side is mentioned there is no objection, but Western civilisation
like all civilisations had acheivements to be proud of also, Many of them, why is it such a big taboo to menion these things. I thought universities were truth seekers, why hide the truth of Western civilisations acheivments. Thats just a form of re-writing history because it doesnt suit the narrative some people prefer.

Cherful: I thought universities were truth seekers, why hide the truth of Western civilisations achievements.

Not anymore. It all has to fit a Socialist, PC agenda or you'll fail your Course or if you're an academic get the sack.

Cherful: That's just a form of re-writing history because it doesn't suit the narrative some people prefer.

Exactly. I had a conversation recently with an Academic at James Cook. He told me that he has to go along with the current Political Guidelines of the Uni or he would lose his tenure. He's in Aboriginal Studies or something. I questioned his claim of aboriginal only being here 40000 years as opposed to earlier studies which say 80000 years & he said, " I have to agree with 40000 years as that is the current agreement with the Aboriginal Communities."

Well there ya go.