The development of philosophy in Asia and Europe is almost synchronous, both in time and concept. For example, Confucius and Aristotle (both of them are the doctrine of the mean, with different times)

We can regard religion as the embodiment of the worship of gods in the development of human civilization. In awe of nature, religion is almost immortal. Any emperor who has thought about himself and the country has thought about how to make good use of religion, the double-edged sword of the ruler. Confucius and Aristotle have similar ideas in the development of philosophy, but after them, they are quite different. The most noteworthy is the emergence of a unified and centralized state in the Qin Dynasty and Han Dong's thoughts on calligraphy, such as "respecting Confucianism" and "the unity of heaven and man". Qin has the title of "emperor", which means that the emperor is the son of God, and religion originally served the imperial power; "The unity of heaven and man" means the unity of god and man, and the emperor has become the spokesman of God on earth, which is an excuse to completely become imperial power.

Then why didn't the west successfully form authoritarian centralization? I think it is determined by its own geographical and political influence. The city-state system of a small country with few people and the burgeoning trade brought about the germination of freedom, which was far less bound by the "rites and music" on the agricultural plain.

The social system of the American continent is unique. At that time, there were many brilliant tribal civilizations, such as Aztec civilization and Mayan civilization. It was too difficult for these closed civilizations to resist the Dutch, Spanish and Portuguese invaders at that time, and they undoubtedly entered colonial history. As for the founders of American civilization in modern history, they are not local aborigines, but local aborigines, immigrants, invaders and their descendants.