We remain quite confused on this question. The idea of Europe does not need to be given any content. The miracle is that it exists as a concept. A formal concept if you wish. Think about what was necessary for a number of nations or tribes to think beyond their own horizons and to define a larger world beyond their border. And how absurd: this world was not and was not supposed to be a state. Europe may have tried to export the abstraction elsewhere, inventing the other continents, but they never took root for the nations forming them. Whereas in Europe the concept flourished. Europe freed us from borders and we have yet to fully understand what vistas the disappearance of national worlds opened up. What is Europe? Who belongs to Europe? There was no secret code or collective stereotype. To Europe belonged those who could think of Europe, that is to say, of the world beyond.
The answer to that is quite obvious - what was required is to be conquered by and incorporated into the Roman and later the Carolingian Empire(s).
The more a modern state is located on territory that was part of those empires (particularly governing part, and particularly of the Carolingian empire), the more it is considered to be part of "Europe".
This is why the original borders of the EU pretty much follow the borders of Charlemagne's holdings.
Beyond that are the minor states that WANT to be considered "part of Europe" because their elites believe this to be their path to wealth and power.
I think Europe can onlu be thought of as in opposition to other concepts that surround us: initially, we the metroplis vs the colonies; we the Christians vs the Muslims around us; we the culture of light and reason vs the darkness around us; we modernity vs the backwards around us.
More recently, after WW2, we the ones who fucked up vs the new world powers; we the ones who are too small and have to stick together vs US/ China/ etc; we the peaceful, democratic, righteous one vs the rest.
And from this, a common identity is being created.
In a way, comparing to Switzerland is helpful.
[NB I'm not subscribing the values above, just analyzing.]
Since world war 2, I feel the idea of Europe has narrowed. Unconsciously, most people mean Western Europe when they say Europe with a nod to the inclusion of Scandinavia. Eastern Europe and especially the balkans are thought of as a periphery.
Yeah, I agree, but Eastern Europe is still "Europe". On the other hand, Russia is disappearing from what "Europe" is, it is becoming another world, another area, another culture and sphere. (The concept of "Europe" continued to evolve.)
>To Europe belonged those who could think of Europe, that is to say, of the world beyond.
Spengler gave a similar and definitive answer, identifying the Faustian spirit that emerged in Europe around AD 1000 -- unbounded spaces and perspectival horizons and willful crusades and sky-scraping cathedrals -- as a new civilization distinct from the classical past. We'll never get bored of winning, an obscure monk once remarked. To infinity and beyond.
Conquest was not a discover that can be attributed to the peoples of Europe, only that they managed to reach the most recent and lasting effect. Understand what happened, why it happened, is crucial to see how Europe can stay afloat in History
The answer to that is quite obvious - what was required is to be conquered by and incorporated into the Roman and later the Carolingian Empire(s).
The more a modern state is located on territory that was part of those empires (particularly governing part, and particularly of the Carolingian empire), the more it is considered to be part of "Europe".
This is why the original borders of the EU pretty much follow the borders of Charlemagne's holdings.
Beyond that are the minor states that WANT to be considered "part of Europe" because their elites believe this to be their path to wealth and power.
not exactly an incredible advertisement for people to pay for a subscription here :)
I think Europe can onlu be thought of as in opposition to other concepts that surround us: initially, we the metroplis vs the colonies; we the Christians vs the Muslims around us; we the culture of light and reason vs the darkness around us; we modernity vs the backwards around us.
More recently, after WW2, we the ones who fucked up vs the new world powers; we the ones who are too small and have to stick together vs US/ China/ etc; we the peaceful, democratic, righteous one vs the rest.
And from this, a common identity is being created.
In a way, comparing to Switzerland is helpful.
[NB I'm not subscribing the values above, just analyzing.]
Since world war 2, I feel the idea of Europe has narrowed. Unconsciously, most people mean Western Europe when they say Europe with a nod to the inclusion of Scandinavia. Eastern Europe and especially the balkans are thought of as a periphery.
Yeah, I agree, but Eastern Europe is still "Europe". On the other hand, Russia is disappearing from what "Europe" is, it is becoming another world, another area, another culture and sphere. (The concept of "Europe" continued to evolve.)
>To Europe belonged those who could think of Europe, that is to say, of the world beyond.
Spengler gave a similar and definitive answer, identifying the Faustian spirit that emerged in Europe around AD 1000 -- unbounded spaces and perspectival horizons and willful crusades and sky-scraping cathedrals -- as a new civilization distinct from the classical past. We'll never get bored of winning, an obscure monk once remarked. To infinity and beyond.
Conquest was not a discover that can be attributed to the peoples of Europe, only that they managed to reach the most recent and lasting effect. Understand what happened, why it happened, is crucial to see how Europe can stay afloat in History