Shock of Western vs Japanese values

[Maciamo]

What about Buddhism? "Desire is suffering." It's a religion supposedly embraced by Japan.

Modern Japanese people are certainly much more influenced by Confucianism (seniority system, hierarchy, meritocracy, etc.), or even Shintoism (in anime at least ) than Buddhism. That is funny how most Westerners see Japan as a Buddhist country. Maybe is it because they don't know (so well) the 2 others, and Buddhism is a world religion known to be present in most of East Asia. If Modern Hindu Indians live very much according to Buddhist beliefs, as they consider it a branch of Hinduism (Buddha was Hindu, that is a fact), I can't say that East Asian, and especially Japanese, are the right receptacle for believing in an ascetic life devoid of material desire. Actually, looking in depth at the culture and mentality, I'd say that the Japanese culture is one of the most unadapted to Buddhism. But Confucianism certainly fit them to the bone, even without temple or without book. It's just innate or deeply ingrained in the culture.

Adding to the above quote, Phoenicians & Greeks influenced each other in many a way. They dominated the Mediterranean at roughly the same time & had a lot of economical & cultural contacts. The Phoenicians constituted one of the main links between the cultures of Europe & the Middle East. I don't know, how far this influence went, but according to some, quite far. You can't really draw distinct lines between all these cultures.

Yes, and I forgot to mention that Knossos in Crete was also a Phoenician city. As Phoenicians had some many contact and mingling with the Greeks, and were integrated into the Roman Empire, we could say that they are as much part of the Western heritage. After all, even the Greek and Roman alphabet derived from the Phoenician one (the first real alphabet in the world, while Babylonian/Assyrian and Egyptian scripts were more like kanji).

From the birth of Christianity to the beginning of the Renaissance, there doesn't seem to be much evidence of individualism.

Alright, I have to admit that the mediaeval knights had very strong family and lord-vassal ties, actually similar to that of the Japanese samurai. But, middle ages apart, we could at least say since the Renaissance and beginning of the colonization in the late 15th century.

There was also no systematic idea, back then, of placing high value on the individual.

But many soldiers, explorators, artists or thinkers cared a lot about their image, prestige and personal achievment. Pizzaro, Cortes, Columbus, Magellan, Cabral, da Vinci, Michelangello, Machiavelli, the Borgia family, etc. were all motivated by their own personal gain and success. Rather than caring about the good of the nation, even Columbus who claimed discovering the West Indies for Spain (which sponsored the expedition), was Genovan (Italian), and first asked the court of Portugal to finance his project. He couldn't care less which "country" he was working for. All that matters were the results and proving he was right. I am not going to explain for each of them, but they all lived a very individualistic life, IMHO.

For instance, the notion that the state exists to serve individuals, rather than the other way around, is an enlightenment idea.

Yes, but that is a idea related more to democracy, equality and human rights than just individualism. Actually, it was one of the first "socialist" ideas that the state should "care for the people". Before, kings and princes were only concerned about themselves, very individualistically. It may be that the Enlightment first sacrifice the selfishness of the powerful for the benefit of the weak. This has its roots in the moralistic and idealistic heritage of the West, not its individualism.

In my Opinio, the most individualistic period in Western Europe was roughly from the mid-15th to mid-18th century. After that, the concepts of democracy, equality, nation-states (19th century), etc. appeared and people felt for the first time that they acted for their nation or empire, rather than just for themselves like before. Patriotisma and nationalism rose, until it exploded in WWI, which people fought only for the glory and pride of their nation, not for themselves (who hoped waging this horrible war anyway ?).

Individualism surged again after WWI, and especially after WWII. But it is true that some European countries are nowadays less individualistic and more group-oriented (Spain, Portugal and Greece in particular).

Non European Western countries like the US or Australia had a different evolution. Individualism was at its strongest in the 19th century (Gold Rush, cow boys, the "border", etc.) . The US only started to develop a strong sense of nation made of patriotic people after WWI and WWII, I think. But in some way, the US has never reached the same level of "providencial State" as Europe, because it favoured ultra-liberalism over socialism.

It is funny to see that nowadays patriotic and ultra-liberal Americans are less likely to travel abroad (further than Canada or Mexico) by themselves, or usually travel in group (with other Americans), while Northern European of less patriotic and more socialist countries (that also include the UK), do not hesitate to travel for months around the world all on their own (meeting new people everyday on the way). In that respect, I'd say Northern European (led by the British and the Dutch) are more individualistic than Americans or Southern Europeans. I guess it's all a matter of balance between individualism and collectivism regarding government, family, job, travel, personal success, leisures, etc.