Albert Einstein said that the world we created is a product of our thinking: it cannot be changed without changing our thinking.
It is difficult not to agree with him, even if it is necessary, in my opinion, to specify that the human thought that created the world, if evaluated both geographically and historically, does not appear so homogeneous and uniform as to be considered a unique and above all immutable entity, but often presents different if not (sometimes) even contradictory aspects.
Although generalizations are always to be avoided, it can be said, in principle, that a rather deep rift originally divided Eastern and Western thought, especially in terms of "logic".
When in China a current of thought defined itself as a "logicist" it soon saw its studies stalled, even though they intended to refer to Western sophistication.
The same "monistic" and "naturalistic" vision of the world, although present, in the East, in substance, in Confucianism (as well as in other Eastern religions) is still associated with the "dualism" of a cosmology and a metaphysics that distinguish the feminine principle connected to the Earth (yin) from the masculine one connected with Heaven (yang).
However, cleansed of its cosmological and metaphysical elements, Chinese monism (in the wake of Western "physical" science) has made scientific steps forward by leaps and bounds.
The mixture between the monistic principle and the dualistic cosmological vision derives from the fact that, in the East, of the three aspects of human thought (logic, fantasy, memory), philosophy has always privileged the second (imagination, the oneiric vision of reality). Even Eastern philosophical reasoning, interwoven, as it is, with riddles and verbal games, transcends logic and is nourished by imaginative elements.
Consistent with this assumption, philosophical monism, which in the West excludes any imaginative prediction of different worlds and extraterrestrial metaphysical realities, is completely foreign to the Eastern world.
Of course, the aforementioned "split" exists from its origins but has historically become increasingly epidermal and superficial due to the encounter and integration of the two cultures.
The bridge between a monistic and rationalistic West and a dualistic and imaginative East is constituted by the Mesopotamian belt, where the monotheistic Middle Eastern religions, decidedly dualistic, managing to exert their influence also on neighboring Greece, (where empiricist, materialistic, monistic philosophy dominated , physics, rational and logical, atomistic) have mitigated many differences.
The "Trojan horse" to enter the pre-Socratic citadel was Plato who, on the philosophical level, inventing his hyperuranium world and the Idea that comes before Being, is ideally connected to the monotheistic religions of the Middle East (Moses, Jesus Christ and Mohammed), equally imaginative and fanciful. With the Platonic-Aristotelian Academy an unprecedented West was born, with a pout-pourridi visions of the world that were very contradictory between them.
If we add to this that, always historically, the "torch" of Western thought (the one before Plato) was collected in the British Isles by the English neo-empiricists (John Locke, David Hume) it can be understood that when we speak today of " western thought ”refers to an indistinguishable melànge, a cocktail with the most diverse and disparate ingredients.
And in fact we find there the idea of freedom of opinion and action, born in Rome and cultivated there (Mommsen and Gibbon say), but also the constricting prescriptions already only in the thought of monotheistic religions (especially Jewish and Christian); the cult of physical love (heterosexual and homosexual) of pagan civilization and the unnatural limitations of any sexual spontaneity, imposed by the savage Middle Eastern customs (circumcision, stoning of women, terror on the effects of masturbation, obligation of celibacy, cloister and so on destroying) ; the civil and intellectually animated life of the polis and the res publica,
and the suffocating theocratic, monarchical, tyrannical dictatorships.
Returning to Albert Einstein and his aphorism, we can ask ourselves, limiting our investigation to the Western world (which is now a bit of a leader in world thought, if we consider the spread of the English language and especially North American ways of life), whether there are signs of the change in the dominant thought in the West.
In truth, the changes seem to have affected more the private sphere of individuals than the public one, where the signs are not very encouraging.
Always allied with Jews and Christians, the followers of German post-Hegelian idealism, now almost predominantly left-wing (the right fringes are few, sparse) unfortunately still represent a large number in the Western world. And this, even after the crimes committed in the "short century" by Nazi-fascists and social-communists.
The clarity achieved by human beings in personal, interpersonal, family matters still seems far from any lucidity of political vision.
People still do not see clearly in the facts of politics because the emotionality that drives them to hatred for others (much more realistic than the fake love of ecumenists) is greatly favored by the "buonisms" preached and exalted by the false prophets of love universal.
Driven by so many sermons in bad faith to come out of love for themselves (the only ones who could love usque ad finem) and for those united to them by the same destinies for belonging to the same polis, human beings still grope in darkness and darkness of a world built on the falsehoods of Western universalist promises and on the harsh reality of substantial dictatorships of politicians with hair on their stomachs, well-paid servants by planetary-level usurers.
The discourse changes when we move on to private and family life.
Anglo-Saxon cinematography, television series not only from England and the United States but also from Spain and Mexico, freed animated sound images from the Jewish and Manichaean dictatorship of the Hollywood majors and from the edifying and false one of Christians in the guise of clerical-fascists or cat-communists and the presence of a voyeur God of intercourse, fornication and masturbation offer us a picture of sexual relations (hetero or homo) finally free from the sick and unnatural obsession, from the unhealthy effects, of the so-called "sins of the flesh".
Films and serials fight bans and mental foreclosures to make a contribution not to "civil battles" (now made obsolete by the times and overcome by the sexual revolutions that began in Northern Europe and continued throughout the West) but to the struggle with three nonsense, the stupidity and absurdities spread in the West by primitive and barbarian peoples, with the help of faith.
Even the "myth" of the family, of the presence (and even of the equal intensity) of the affections within it in spite of the "affinities" or "disaffinities" often existing among its members, is subjected by those forges of images to powerful and beneficial blows of the mallet and is disintegrating with the complicity of "globalization" that splits the "home" under the profile, so to speak, of physical coexistence.
Of course changing the thought to transform the world that was built on that thought is not easy. Above all, the so-called "common sense" people oppose it. Also, here, however, Albert Einstein comes to our rescue: Common sense is the set of prejudices acquired up to eighteen.