The Idea That Changed Europe
When Rome fell the Biblical story of creation remained. Some call this period the Dark Ages. What changed the direction Europe was going?
I am hoping we might discuss what Scholasticism had to do with the change.
I am hoping we might discuss what Scholasticism had to do with the change.
Scholasticism was a medieval school of philosophy that employed a critical organic method of philosophical analysis predicated upon the Aristotelian 10 Categories. Christian scholasticism emerged within the monastic schools that translated scholastic Judeo-Islamic philosophies, and thereby "rediscovered" the collected works of Aristotle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholasticism
Comments (104)
The story of creation was not actually a christian idea, it came from African tribes and was already ancient when the christians adopted it.
The western part of the Roman empire was broken down into many little kingdoms that over centuries became larger with only one king and developed the feudal system of government.
Christianity expanded and became the major religion in western Europe and separated for the Orthodox church in the east.
Over the centuries both the church and the lords eventually became so corrupt that the peasants revolted against both.
During the Early and High Middle ages, most advancements came about through the inventiveness of the peasants, better farming methods and tool technology, the use of wind and water power.
The Late Middle Ages was when the started to re-discover the ideas of the ancient Greeks and that started the renaissance.
My mistake, we were talking about the middle ages which were christian and most bibles contain the old testament.
Quoting Deleted user
This is an Asian myth
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_creation_narrative
There are many creation stories from Africa that have parts similar to the bible. This one contains an all knowing, all seeing god and a snake giving sex ed classes.
https://www.gateway-africa.com/stories/Ashanti_on_procreation.html
This one has gods making people out of clay and a flood
https://www.gateway-africa.com/stories/Yoruba_Creation_Myth.html
When Rome fell, Europe was first sacked and then taken over by barbarians tribes that eventually settled and became the inheritors of the civilization.
Near the tail end of this process, the Viking age started, which roughly coincided with the creation of Islam which posed yet another round of grave threats to Europe from nearly every direction.
It is only around the 11th and12th century that the aforementioned inheritors manage to stabilize the situation and European society could start to flourish again.
But before it truly could, the bubonic plague and the Mongol invasions started.
All in all, it's not so strange Europe entered a Dark Age.
Not much, I think. Quoting Athena
It isn't clear to me it had anything to do with it, if I understand your question correctly. Are you asking whether the rediscovery of the works of Aristotle and other ancient thinkers by monks influenced the change?
Well first, the Hebrews as an Asian people, so obviously it is defacto an Asian creation narrative. There are certainly similarities between Genesis and Sumerian and Babylonian creation narratives, but as minds like Jung and Joseph Campbell, or the perrenialists have shown, you can make a case for "great similarity" between essentially all such narratives.
The ideas in Genesis are indeed very old and predate the Hebrew language. Verses from Numbers have been found in a sort of proto-Hebraic, while a version of the Ark story is among the oldest pieces of writing that have ever been recovered.
However, it is impossible to say that African versions of this story are the originals. There is no written material coming out of SSA that is as old as the Mesopotamian sources. The Yeruba people didn't emerge until millennia later and the Asante are a good deal later than them. It is certainly [I]possible[/I] that these stories preexist the split off of these (relatively) new ethnic groups, but wouldn't it be more plausible that they made it down from Egypt, which has had extensive trade networks moving down into SSA and a large Jewish population since antiquity? We know Christianity had taken root in Ethiopia centuries before the earliest of those two groups emerged.
:up:
We learn new things about those before us near every day. Sadly, or perhaps not, some things will remain lost to the ages.
IIRC, there was no "Europe" until Charlemagne's reign. Several centuries later, in the wake of "the Black Death", my guess is Magna Carta (proto-republicanism) + plundering the Americas, etc + "The Renaissance" gave Europe its modern direction.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Nothing proves that the Hebrew creation myth is anything more than a story made up by a bunch of old men with nothing better to do while waiting for an animal to fall into a trap.
But there are a few old African stories, possibly including that of the Yoruba, that were passed by word of mouth from generation to generation well before the Jews existed and contain elements of the creation story related in the bible. We only know about them from when they were made contact with so we have no idea how old their stories are.
Maybe they did copy some ideas from the Egyptians, but I cannot imagine that the old wise men would take kindly to changes being made in the centuries or millennium years old chants that had had to be recited for years to be remembered. Adding a new beginning to oral history I think would tend to screw things up a bit.
Many of these early Genesis stories including the flood can be traced back to Mesopotamia and have parallels in Mesopotamian texts such as Enuma Elish; the land of Palestine doesn't really flood but the region between the Tigris and Euphrates does. Babel describes the Mesopotamian ziggurat. There is similarly a "tree of life" in the Mesopotamian edenic account where the hero searches desperately for eternal life where in the Israelite account the tree receives near zero attention.
And so what's your point?
The first creation story was probably expressed when languages emerged, say, 350 000 years ago, when it became practically possible to talk about causes and effects.
The funny thing with history is that it creates while it describes. It reconstructs a story that presumably explains why things happened in such and such way, but in fact becomes an integral part of that history and constitutes the its very own object. The landmass may have been called Europe by some guy called Ptolemy, but so what? It is only relevant because we now through our construction of history hold Ptolemy in high regard. When we recount the story of 'Europe' we recount events that presumably sets it apart from other places. Magna Carta might be one, but I reckon other peoples experienced their 'magna carta' moment. It is through featuring in the historical tales of Europe that it had a place.
I doubt the history of Europe is dissimilar from the history of other places. It is through conquest that 'Europe' became a thing. Not by being a 'thing in itself' but an entity developed, adorned and embellished by Europeans and therefore important since Europeans held sway in huge parts of the world. If anything was important it is the emergence of the scientific method which allowed Western Europeans to develop better weaponry than its enemies, most notably the Ottoman empire. Before that it generally followed developments in the more advanced civilizations of the East. Scholasticism to me is not a candidate for any special status. Islamic and Judaic philosophers were more adapt at it, or at least equal.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/old-testament-seminary-teacher-manual/introduction-to-the-book-of-genesis?lang=eng
Depending on your beliefs, you might think that an all powerful and knowing god wold actually tell his most important person something like this.
The only historical sources available to him that were from before his times were oral histories
I found again the story I was looking for earlier from the Efé Pygmies, it is called the Forbidden Fruit.
The Efé Pygmies have been shown to be one of the oldest intact cultures on Earth by dNA studies.
Quoting Deleted user
That was in answer to a comment from someone else that suggested that the stories moved out of Egypt along the trade routes.
:up: :up:
@Deleted user
:fire:
:100:
@Athena (re: pre-Hebrew Bible antiquity of "Genesis" stories ... :up: )
It is always difficult to sort out ancestors but if the matter is to be seen through the establishment and reactions to religious thought, the results of the "Reformation" (not as tidy an idea as often described) is the immediate progenitor of "europe" through the terrible process of the Thirty Years War and the Peace of Westphalia that paused some conflicts for a bit.
The messy vastness of all that makes me reluctant to pin the tail upon a particular donkey.
I second that, extremely important book, one I read when I first joined forums and which underlies a lot of what I've been exploring since. There's a good review and synopsis here.
And you are basing that claim on what? Between 500 and say 1500 Europe was neither technologically, nor militarily or scientifically more advanced then China, Islamic Egypt, the Ottoman empire, the Mongolian khanate etc. The biggest cities and centers of learning were in the East, i.e. Constantinople, Baghdad, Cairo. In Europe only Italy had something of an urban culture. As far as I know my history, philosophy and sociology of course.
Quoting Deleted user
Why is that a compliment? Only if you have some sort of normative commitment to violence being a good thing might this be construed as a compliment.
Oh, Europe's just fine. You needn't worry about it. We continue to look back on the glory that was Greece and the grandeur that was Rome as Poe would say.
Sigh. I'll bite.
So that's a good thing now? What if someone "conquests" you of your wallet and blood pressure levels by way of a stabbing on your next morning walk? Don't call 911 or bother other people now. Make sure you lay there and die with honor following your principles to your last breath lest you survive and live a life of shameful hypocrisy upon discovering the shocking revelation seldom reserved to only the most profound of intellects (and most ten-year-olds) that doing bad things might actually be bad after all. :smirk:
Quoting Deleted user
All true. Though, one might ought to think twice before assuming which side of the divide one truly belongs to. Those who can remain consistent in their virtues and values despite hardship, remaining a product of themselves despite difficulty, who avoided being molded into monsters by the world around them, instead mastering their own life and level of contentedness without succumbing to the worst of human nature and all that is universally detestable: greed, theft, deception, violence, indifference, dishonor, and savagery are the strong, not the other way around. But as you say, it is the strategy of the weak to convince themselves and others otherwise. A winning one at that, it would seem. :smile:
Besides. There was probably much lying, deception, and other means of dishonor, not to mention sheer luck. Furthermore, being stronger than a person, which again has yet to be established, does not make others weak other than by means of a one-off snapshot comparison. This is a common phenomenon often observed in those with deep-seated inferiority complexes and related neurosis, doomed to a life of psychological projection, constantly seeing their own inferior qualities they desperately wish to conceal from the world and themselves in others, manifested as inability to avoid condescending feelings upon observation of others. And anyway, me thinks you confuse quantity with quality. A common mistake. As well as that last assertion of being "much much worse" being little more than an out-of-left-field claim of baseless conjecture.
Come on Lio, I read your posts. You're a smart cookie. Surely you can do much better than that. Surely the good readers of TPF deserve better than this pseudo-intellectual juvenile hoodlum talk you're peddling and granting us the displeasure of having to ingest this Thursday morning. :smirk:
And I'm all for Europe. But what I won't stand for is having Her represented by such a poor, shortsighted, poison-welled, empty-headed excuse of a defense of integrity and value. Again. Do better.
That looks like a good account of what happened. I am learning from The Great Courses and I am having a devil of time comprehending the break up of Rome and eventual development of nations. I need to see a map. It would be really cool to see a map that changed colors as people moved from one area to the next. It is easier for me to grasp a thought if I can see it.
:lol: I accept that I do not meet a higher standard of writing. I will always be more personal than technologically correct and I will always wonder and enjoy what others think.
The importance of Genesis is the mythology that has molded the whole of Western civilization. I don't think anything is more important to societies than their shared mythology. Even for those of us who do not believe the Bible is the word of God, it is still a strong part of our lives because it is the foundation of our culture, along with the Greek and Roman classics. We can not escape it. The word "human" means moist soil. Our failure to be aware of how Christianity affects our lives does not mean we are free from that mythology.
Pefect!! "Exposing the religious roots of our ostensibly godless age, Michael Allen Gillespie reveals in this landmark study that modernity is much less secular than conventional wisdom suggests."
I am so happy you posted what I attempted to say in my post just before this one. I am afraid I need that book. :grimace: I already have too many books, but this particular subject is what is most interesting to me at the moment. :up:
I could understand that part of the lectures I am learning from. Just before everything went so wrong, they had overpopulation and could not produce enough food. The plague depleted the size of the population so much that they turned to serfdom and tied the peasants to the land, stripping them of all freedom! That situation was intolerable! They justified it with Roman law, as Rome also tied people to the land to force their labor in growing food.
We appear to be food safe, but I wonder what would we do if our systems broke down and we needed more labor in our fields?
So, the 'scholastics', who were avid readers and propogators of 'the Classics', were responsible for the snuffing out of classical education?
I've been there five times, and hope to return. Only once to Rome and once to Greece--Athens and the day trip to Delphi, and Santorini. I had hoped to get to Eleusis to see the remains of the Telesterion and other sites related to the Mysteries, but couldn't.
They're wonderful, of course, but in many ways we can only make educated guesses regarding what they were, and I think it's what they were that laid the foundation for Western civilization. We should be thankful that so much survived the ravages of Christianity.
This thread really serves to spotlight your pedantry, I must say. Sorry, I will say. No, I have said.
Advanced in what respect should be asked actually. I was unclear on that. I meant militarily more advanced, philosophically more advanced, economically, scientifically etc. Not in every respect medieval Europe lagged, but militarily and administratively it was behind the Ottoman Empire for centuries for instance. It held sway over the biggest city in Europe and had an advanced bureaucracy capable of fielding a standing professional army. The philosophical texts of the Greeks were studied mostly in the East, in North Africa and Spain.
That rarely happens.
Quoting Deleted user
An empire can be militarily advanced, allowing it to kill of 20% of the population of Eurasia... That does not make the violence more or less abhorrent. Did you mean with advanced, morally advanced? Then Europe is in a bit of a pickle having colonized most of the earth. Unfortunately, technological advance is often coupled with conquest. That is why the Turkish and Mongols were capable of penetrating deep into geographical Europe and that is why Europeans managed to colonize other people. I am not talking morality here. I am not not in the business of giving compliments or condemnations, at least not here..
Compared to what? I live in the Netherlands and Den Haag (It is either Den Haag, or The Hague or La Haye as it is sometimes referred to, but not De Hague) was fine last time I visited.
Really? Those Romans and Greeks weren't deviants? I suppose as long as you kept your forays, as an upper class member of Roman society, to the lower classes and the slave class you were alright (and maintained the dominant role, of course.) Weren't the Greeks big on relations between older male mentors and younger men? The Maccabees opposed such degeneracy intruding into their culture. And later you have stricter Christian sexual ethics which includes monogamy and the disavowal of sex before marriage.
I understand notions of purity existed in Roman culture but they seemed to be very selective and not at all universal & dependent on social class.
There are many reasons not to be certain about it. When did the Genesis version of creation get written down and when christian missionaries go there?
The fact that their DNA remains without external influence for so long seems to indicate lack of contact with the outside world. I think that the Egyptians had a better chance of influencing them long before the christians ever got there, but there is little sign of influence from them.
All those Mongolian tourists. I understand.
I see his point. Your saying by allowing the written words and stories of those much like yourself to enrich your life and instill the values they were meant to instill and have instilled unto those who were presently involved in the story, you yourself are now effectively part of that story, or at least able to gleam a sufficient amount of experience and culture from said tales to a comparable degree of those who lived in/during said times and to place yourself within the story as if you yourself were there. He is saying that's still more living vicariously, a lesser depth or dimension than that of those who the story was literally about or involved chiefly due to the fact such tales despite any level of detail and depth of perspective will always fall short to that of a person who was born and raised in such a time as that was literally their reality and all they've ever known from birth til death, a reality that cannot be "visited" and "unvisited" the way we can choose to read or not read a book and so remains more of a cultural enrichment or immersion activity similar to a trip to another country as opposed to full on cultural transcendence and ultimate understanding.
I don't think the ancients were as consumed by the thought of sexual deviancy as we are, or have been, since the remarkable, sex-hating, Paul of Tarsus began to contribute to what Christianity became.
For example, both ancient Greece and ancient Rome were largely indifferent to same sex relations at least where men were concerned, though the Romans considered it unmanly and rather ridiculous for a man to assume the "passive" role in those relationships. Julius Caesar was mocked by his detractors for being "Every woman's man and every man's woman." The regard the Romans had for the family under the stern supervision of the pater familias made it difficult and dangerous for a woman to be sexually active with more than one partner at a time, but I think the men were mostly free to do what they liked.
The Sacred Band of Thebes, a select group of warriors, was made up of male couples in a same sex relationship, one older and one younger. Alcibiades supposedly was in love with Socrates, according to Plato. Hadrian had his Antinous. Same sex relations and bisexuality were rather common, it seems, and depicted in such works as Petronius' Satyricon.
The elections to the European Parliament in just a few weeks will be fascinating.
We started with something outstanding: the attempted murder of Slovakia's President.
Not even in backward countries like Mexico or India is this done.
Yeah that's it! We simply hate it.
Quoting Deleted user
They only did for some time. During Roman rule perhaps and after the scientific revolution. Afterwards advances in technology were mostly made in the US and Japan. The problem as I see it, is that it is somehow threatening to your self perception to acknowledge the contributions of other peoples than Europeans. Now you are probably lamenting the demise of Europe and blame it on the dillution of European culture somehow. Only a Greek might feel pride when he/she sees the acropolis. That Greeks intermingled with the Turkish and other Balkan cultures and so probably there is no Greek person that can trace his heritage back to the ancient Athenians and Spartans is apparently of no concern. In your mind there is something essentially Greek and if you have 'it' then you can admire the acropolis otherwise you cannot.
Such notions are rather dangerous as history has proven, but they are also rather silly because what is European and is not, are not fixed categories. North Africa belonged to the Roman world, the Ottoman Empire belonged to what became known as the concert of Europe since 1856. Israel plays in European football competitions and sings in the Eurovision song contest etc.
I'm rather certain his disapproval and concerns lie in the greater more generalized danger of over-indulgence and the effects it can have on not just people but entire societies when one allows his or her life to become warped and inevitably controlled by intrinsically purposeless (albeit enjoyable) pursuits, recreational sex naturally being the most dangerous, likely to sway individuals both rich and poor, be they strong or meek, morally-upright and pious or not. It rightfully holds such a reputation as it (sex for pleasure) is often confused, especially by the young or uneducated, with being among the Great qualities and pursuits in life man strives to achieve: love, health, honor, and family. In societies where these formerly great values have become corrupted, the victims of that society then begin to view mindless whoredom as the pinnacle and sought after sum or culmination of all life purpose and effort. It is in no short part because, we, especially when young or uneducated, tend to view sexual relations as the ultimate form of personal acceptance, and as a result the ultimate form of worth or value, and conversely, the ultimate form of rejection and worthlessness. This corruption, this animal-like social dynamic man has been given the tools and intellectual capacity to leave behind as the first upright mammal left behind his former place wallowing in the dust of the Earth is what he valiantly tried, and succeeded for a time, to prevent.
So like most things, it was not the thing itself, but the principle behind it, in this case the lack of one, the dangers of blind indulgence, corruption and destruction of intellectual and moral values, and the resulting tendency of these things, especially when conducted in unison, to destroy societies and as a result end entire civilizations writ-large.
He is remarkable. I read Paul as a man deeply concerned about his own salvation. When I look at his biography, I find myself thinking that this man is going to need a lot of faith and a lot of grace. His deep concern for his own salvation is not unfounded. He is not a Jew who has played by the rules of his background/tradition.
But Jesus isn't here to call the righteous, but the sinner. And that Paul is a sinner. But he knows it. Prototypical Christ-follower imo. In life some of us will go very astray and the radicalness of Christianity lies in the fact that it is not necessarily those who behave the best who attain the best afterlife, but those who do the right internal work.
The polytheists surely had a more lax sexual ethic generally, though I do understand the Roman world has the vestal virgins and a woman's purity was highly valued. In the Jewish world prohibitions against homosexuality, incest, and bestiality were established early with the biblical penalty often being death. But I know of not a single case where this actually occurred at least regarding homosexuality. Fornication was frowned upon.
One of the reasons they're still read is obviously because they were judged to have enduring value, and the fact that they have been preserved for millenia attests to that. (Presumably there were many minor and lesser writings that were not so preserved.) But I do get that to really understand (for example) Plato's corpus, you would have to read them in the original, so as to grasp all of the allusions and subtleties of the language. But then, it's a difficult field of scholarship, due both to the difficulties of the source texts, and also that they have been subject to centuries of commentary.
I've been attracted to Lloyd Gerson's books, and also those of a classics scholar Katya Vogt, but their books are very hard to read. They contain very lengthy and detailed footnotes and devote a great deal of time to defending their interpretation against others, ancient and modern, which introduce many intricacies of interpretation and arcane arguments replete with passages in Greek which of course I don't understand.
But, I do agree with the points you've made above, about assimilating the ideas from these texts, indeed that's why I made the remark at the outset. Also I've noticed this series from Princeton Press which makes available many classic texts.
I certainly don't fully understand fully Paul. I wasn't raised Christian. Happy to be corrected.
In ancient Judaism fornication -- sex outside marriage -- was frowned upon. It just doesn't receive the same type of penalties as something like adultery or homosexuality. The attitude towards it is biblically-based.
edit: In deut 22 the topic is mentioned. Women should be virgins before marriage -- i.e. should not have sex outside of marriage.
I hope I was. Feel free to point out what you think is out of line on my part.
Quoting tim wood
Deut 22 deals with a woman maintaining purity before marriage. Men are not to deflower women before marriage or another man's wife. Is that not the topic of fornication? I.e. sex outside of marriage.
Quoting tim wood
Agree. I recommend Alter's translation. Word for word. With commentary.
Hm. I sort of agree? It's the literature of a civilization. Was it written specifically for you, Tim Wood, a 21st century human being? No. It was certainly written for a certain civilization though and there is literature in there that is universal in scope. It's a collection of ~39 different works with different purposes. Some document history, others cultic practices, theological experiments/exercises.... it's a wide mix compiled over ~1000 years. It's not until the New Testament that Paul (and Jesus I guess) tries to graft on the rest of humanity. Regardless of whether Paul is successful in his project, universalistic elements remain.
TLDR: In the OT some is universal others is clearly geared towards a specific people - Israel. The NT takes Jesus and runs with it hard. New divine revelation. One can appreciate the old and not the new. I despise those who only appreciate the new but not the old.
:up:
Quoting tim wood
I can avoid the word and re-state my position. I was simply discussing ancient Jewish and biblical perspectives towards fornication -- sex before marriage. Whether or not we agree with these is another matter altogether. A woman's virginity was valued at marriage; that's all I should have said and I should not have used the word "purity" as it is not mentioned in deuteronomy.
Quoting tim wood
According to Alter translation is a trade off so he must choose one word where many may fit. I will sometimes cross-reference his translations with others but his is my gold standard, although admittedly not always as readable as something like the NIV. Still, better something than nothing imho. If you're very serious you can start learning the biblical hebrew (or greek with the NT).
I usually delight in quibbling, but don't feel you must peruse your cache of quotes regarding the naughtiness of sodomy on my account. I don't doubt there were those who disapproved of it and pederasty in particular, but I think most were indifferent to it compared to the angry fascination with it we see later.
As to Caesar, as I noted, the Romans thought a man taking the passive role in gay sex was ridiculous. So, Caesar was mocked for taking the passive role, in other words becoming another man's woman.
@Ciceronianus is your source on all things Roman. But again, a different sexual ethic than the Christians (and Jews). AFAIK upper class Roman men basically had free reign sexually when it came to the lower classes and especially slaves whose bodies could be used on demand. Extreme promiscuity within the slave ranks. But I would say compared to Jewish-Christian notions of sexuality the Romans (and paganism in general -- constantly associated with sexual libaciousness in the bible) definitely had greater degrees of sexual access and looser/different norms. The romans for instance distinguished between penetrator and penetrated -- in the Hebrew Bible both receive the same harsh treatment and the same carries over into Christianity.
I'm not calling all of them sexual degenerates. That's a value judgment that I'm not at liberty to make. But Roman men (and surely Greek ones too) were allowed to use their slaves and have their dalliances. The Maccabees fought a very bitter war against the Greeks due to Greek ways intruding and the sexual ethic surely played into it.
Judaism and Christianity with its emphasis on monogamy ushered in a stricter sexual ethic than the polytheistic world. I don't believe Jews used their slaves sexually like the Romans did although I'd like to find more info on this topic.
Well then I think you missed the point, try again.
Quoting Deleted user
So the Pygmies reinvented there whole oral history from thousands of years ago just because they heard something knew, very doubtful.
And they had contact with the Egyptians long before that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmy_(Greek_mythology)
So if the Pygmies had contact with the Egyptians way back in
Again the question, "When did the Genesis version of creation get written down?"
Could it be that the story was already know in Egypt even before someone wrote it down?
Quoting Deleted user
Oh dear, so now we are discussing modern times, I am getting confused by your time jumping. Please keep the topic to the time period under discussion to keep it relevant.
They are not my culture because I am neither Greek nor Roman nor even Mexican. Yet my culture interacted with & still, to an extent, interacts with these cultures. Hellenism influenced my people.
:snicker: Don't mind my people we just wrote the Bible.
I think that the problem here is that in modern times, under the christian umbrella, people tend to see so many parts of sexuality as degenerate. The ancient civilizations had a much broader, more relaxed view on such things as shown in much of the writing and art of those times. There are plenty of what would now be called deviations spoken of and show in their art.
Does that mean maybe that for them it was not deviant behavior?
Sure. Yet according to the Bible Japeth (progenitor of the Greeks) and Shem (progenitor of the Hebrews) are both sons of Noah. "God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant." Greek methods of storytelling/literature work their way into the Bible. The Jews love Alexander the Great yet go to war with the Seleucids.
They were militarily above Europeans because after the Roman empire the Ottoman empire were the first to have a standing professional army which requires a centralized bureaucracy. European troops were recruited from the local populace. They were also among the first to employ gun powder in an effective way, integrating it relatively early in their army.
Quoting Deleted user
Of course it can be measured. For instance by looking at the scale of the economy and effectiveness of taxation, the strength of centralized administration and so on. As for Ottoman governance and no one reading anything of it, that is a bit of a tricky claim, I at least read 'Turkey a Modern History' by Erik Jan Zürcher which deals mostly with the latter Ottoman empire and the emergence of modern Turkey, but also treats the Ottoman Golden age. Moreover I read quite a bit on state institutions, not only of Turkey.
Quoting Deleted user
That is like saying if Europeans were superior why did they lose Jerusalem. There is more than technological superiority, for instance the length of supply lines. In the beginning of the modern period (16th century) the ottoman empire was huge, far bigger than the European states, but even they cannot reach everywhere. The same goes for the Mongolian khanate.
Quoting Deleted user
I did not come as a tourist. Why do you think did? I might live there no? Why do you think I live
in a small town? (The Hague might be considered a small town, but Istanbul is not)
Quoting Deleted user
Of course you know what it means. In fact, you understood me well. What is wrong with the Islamic Golden Age? And what is wrong with the Islamic golden age being inspired by the works of ancient Greek philosophy? I do not hold onto the thesis that everything was either this or that. Philosophy, mathematics, strategy and what not are products of intermingling. You like to hold on to some sort of European exceptionalism claiming that somehow it has fixed borders and what not. In my view history itself is a social construction, as is Europe.
Quoting Deleted user
Ohh they certainly did, who intermingled with Turkish children, Albanians and what not. The point is that there is no trace of ancient greece in any of the Greek people currently alive. Just like there is no trace a Roman in any Italian. People mingle. The only thing that is real is the stories they tell, but they are precisely that, stories, usually used to aggrandize some sense of national pride. "I am Greek and not Turkish", even though their ancestry may well be similar. You do the same, trying to save some image of a pristine 'Europe', essentially the same through eternity and somehow essentially Greek and Roman.
Maybe it is not convenient to believe that an ancient group of pagans actually had something worth while before the "civilized" people arrived, That sounds familiar, Indians, Africans, American Indians, Aboriginals were all just savages remember that had little to offer the "civilized" people.
Quoting Deleted user
I know several Asians, Africans and even Americans, but we have not mixed our DNA. Maybe the little guys and gals thought the Egyptians were too ugly.
But here is a study for you to browse at your leisure and a quote from it.
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms4163
Quoting Deleted user
Are you suggesting the Pygmies knew about the Genesis story because of the christians arriving in their lands a thousand years after the birth of christ?
Quoting Deleted user
Let me highlight what you said so that we do not get confused.
Quoting Deleted user
Yeah, slay him. :rofl:
What is your point?
Beer drinking is a major part of European culture, but originated in Mesopotamia about 3500 - 3100 BCE.
Just because something came from another place does not mean it cannot be part of ones culture.
When did this happen and who did it, I must have missed that bit.
Quoting Deleted user
But recipes are a part of culture. :roll:
Quoting Deleted user
But it is for at least these people
https://www.facebook.com/groups/harrypotterhungary/
https://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowUserReviews-g274887-d19126341-r934699361-The_MAGIC_Budapest-Budapest_Central_Hungary.html
https://grimmauld12.wixsite.com/alohomora/about
Maybe they disagree with your idea of culture as well.
Quoting Deleted user
You screwed up again, A lot of culture is based on things like the weather in the place you live, the terrain you live in, the vegetation in that area. People didn't eat what is not grown in the area they live in long ago, so their recipes are based on what was available. And as I have already pointed out to you recipes are part of culture.
Quoting Deleted user
Once again "When did this happen and who did it, I must have missed that bit".
Quoting Deleted user
Ahh, so now you are scared of sophistry. :rofl:
Quoting Deleted user
I think that you misunderstood, what I was trying to say is that they did not have the heads so far up their asses like lots of people today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erotic_art_in_Pompeii_and_Herculaneum
Romans might have been honorable in their today, but the question here is exactly what counted as honorable in their times?
Quoting Deleted user
Seriously, did people actually believe that myth? Just goes to show how far spread ignorance is.
Quoting Deleted user
Take your own advice.
This is a page meant for kiddies to learn from, maybe it will help clear your learning constipation.
https://kids.britannica.com/kids/article/culture/399913
But I guess that Britannica could be wrong.
Quoting Deleted user
Karate, Kung fu, tacos, apple pie, sushi, Soul food,the waltz, are some of many adopted parts of the American way of life. Does that make them any less part of American culture
Quoting Deleted user
I never said it was, maybe you should try reading carefully. What I said was that many customs are based on the weather, especially in farming. Is that not part of the culture then.
Or do you go skiing in the summer and swimming in the winter? The weather plays a big part in the culture of a people.
So you do not believe what is before your eyes, instead preferring to maintain your ignorance to reality.
How many ancient Romans do or did you actually know? Because unless you can speak from first hand knowledge of the subject all I can say is that you are spouting undeniably ridiculous garbage. show us some proof that the Romans were as good and noble as you say they were or shut up.
Quoting Deleted user
Tut TUT. did you never learn that personal attacks against members of a debating group are the ultimate sign of a badly defeated arrogant ignoramus. Especially when they take up jobs with the grammar police.
Quoting Deleted user
As I said earlier you really should do more careful reading, I think that if you look you will find my opinion on men being women is clearly stated on a thread somewhere around the forum.
Oh, one last thing before I tell you to fuck off. Your free grammar lesson:
uncapable of art and uncapable of philosophy
It is INCAPABLE, not uncapable (No, I am not going to put a period here just so that I can annoy you one last time)
Now fuck off.
I think you give sex far too much importance, as did Paul and others did after him.
I referred to indifference to sex in the Roman and Greek (perhaps I should use "Hellenic") world compared to what came later. It may be more accurate to say that sex didn't have the significance it came to have. Sexual relationships could be significant (like convenient marriages), but not so much the sexual act. I think that, then, people weren't as disturbed by it as they are now, particularly as to sex of certain kinds, it seems.
An example, ever been to the ruins of Pompey, or seen them on video? If so, you may have noticed the appalled reaction of some visitors, or the giggling of others, at the frequent depiction of the phallus and the occasional paintings or murals involving various sexual acts. Such things weren't thought forbidden or depraved at the time; a phallus could even be considered "lucky".
We come to attribute too much significance to what we think is forbidden, especially when we believe it's forbidden by God. This strikes me as particularly the case here in our Glorious Union. So we tend to see such as Anthony Comstock, Carrie Nation, Billy Sunday (who was it seems a good baseball player) and other preachers against purported vices of all kinds). We also see others who like to appear to glory in those vices thinking it makes them remarkable in some sense.
It could have been sorcery or addiction to shopping or marijuana or drunkenness, that was my point it wasn't what happened to be the most life-controlling it was the fact that it was. Whether the majority of society "viewed" it as good or bad or casual or not, I'm merely referencing the biological fact it's the easiest form of influence over a person's life, be they man or woman. I get your argument the person who engages in casual sex often and is in no short supply begins to view it as little more than reading a book or completing a puzzle, just another thing that happens, of no more significance that a cloudy afternoon or running into a neighbor at a local market, easily, as you're suggesting "the least important thing in the world and couldn't be further from the forefront of daily thought in one's mind", because it has already become a background controlling factor that has quietly influenced nearly all decision and indecision from as early as the person can remember despite, if asked, their honest belief of the opposite. That was my assertion, at least. The insidious nature of over-indulgence of the flesh and it's quiet, subtle as well as not so quiet and subtle controlling grip over man's destiny and most consequentially, society itself, whether it manifests as a conscious urge or theme one recognizes and responds to or has quietly become part of one's identity and character or community zeitgeist without it consciously being in people's minds as "important" or "occupying", ie. the measurable effect and influence remains pivotal whether or not it is viewed as such or even pondered at all, similar to unconscious bias.
I enjoy irony.
Well, I disagree. I don't think there's anything establishing that indulging in sexual desires dominated political, social or economic decisions in antiquity, or influenced them in any significant sense.
Perhaps a better way to put it would be the following. The culmination of all human relationships (a man, no matter if it be a leader, a merchant, or an unskilled laborer, and his life companion) is influenced predominantly by... who you find attractive ie. who you want to have relations with. All decisions made are impacted and influenced by, if not in part, by what the person's significant other thinks. So sexuality is an omnipresent factor in every facet of activity or thought by default, if not in the background after being the sole or principle "cause" for setting up, basically every form of non-platonic relationship. So to expand on that, let's remove every person who already has a romantic partner, without forgetting sexual indulgence or attraction was at minimum a significant factor in establishing that relationship to begin with and as a result every act or failure to act that occurs after that point. So, no matter what position you are, a political leader, a relatively well-off merchant, or struggling laborer without such a partner, it is not unreasonable to suggest, you want to find either A.) a wife or B.) an attractive partner to have by your side to feel complete and not lonely. Fair? So, you will likely work to make that happen, be it as a leader either freeing up your time perhaps neglecting your job or perhaps bringing glory through conquest or some sort of socially-praised act that is likely to result in obtaining such a person. Or as a merchant, you might wish to open up another shop or start selling items that single women might buy so as to again, produce a result or environment where it is more likely for you to obtain such a person based on, sexual desire. Even the struggling laborer, why does he work? To eat and sustain himself yes, but also to be able to support and thus encourage the likelihood of finding, a romantic partner, to satisfy his sexual desire. Or perhaps it can be romanticized yes, absent of overwhelming physical desire, perhaps any one of these individuals just wants company from a fellow person, to raise a happy home and bring glory and honor to his family, those before him, and his empire. Guess what? 9 times out of 10 he's still going to prefer his partner to be sexually attractive to satisfy that primal urge every man and woman has, an urge that left unchecked will also 9 times out of 10 override logic or better judgement at least on occasion, often at the most unfortunate times. All is fair in love and war, after all. This is the "bulk" of my argument: Unchecked sexual desire makes logic and judgement go out the window like NO other thing can! No it is not "established" or "announced" when a man kills another man out of jealous rage, but also 9 times out of 10 there is a woman involved, which means the act was ultimately brought about by sexual desire.
So, not to get personal, it is none of my business, but I doubt you or anyone reading has not acted or chosen not to act based on the likelihood of said action or inaction resulting in gaining the attention, admiration, or affection of the desired sex for reasons beyond being a nice person. And we're intellectuals. So double or triple that for the average, especially relatively-uneducated citizenry in older times. Imagine if, instead, every action or inaction that affected other people was based on what is best for oneself and others intellectually and morally, instead of what appeases one's primal sensibilities, an appeasement that as I said earlier easily becomes confused with the Great virtues and values in life such as love, honor, etc.
I'm not even personally agreeing or disagreeing with anything, I'm sure you're right about what your asserting, I just find your reply as I happen to interpret it as glossing over a few very important underlying dynamics that seem to suggest, absent of education (theology or morality of any flavor), man is not first and foremost guided if not largely influenced by primal desire, the most prominent (or overlapping, universally connected? ie. likely to influence other emotions) of which being sexuality. I would find that a very difficult claim to defend to say the least.