Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking. Login or Take a Tour!
I felt like Spengler's theory was basically the practice of saying something true and then saying something else right afterward and pointing to the first thing as evidence that the second thing must be true. Yeah, there's a solid prediction of the progression of Western civilization but I don't see any evidence that different civilizations can be taken as wholly independent.
I think he's saying that each civilization has such a distinct world view that any elements it has taken from a previous or neighboring civilization get interpreted as meaning something so different that it makes no sense to say that one civilization "progresses" from another.I don't see any evidence that different civilizations can be taken as wholly independent.