How Does A Society Develop?

[shiner]

I was wandering how a society develops from the very beginning of it's tribal origins. Once tribes got organized and in some cases joined etc., some were able to form more developed civilizations than others.

 

But why did the Europeans sent explorers to the seas (eventually landing in America) instead of the Native Americans sending explorers to land and eventually colonize Europe?

 

Why did the Anglos enslave Africans instead of the other way around?

 

Why were the Chinese and some Muslims (who had more advanced civilizations than the Europens at one time) left way behind all of a sudden by the European Renaissance?

 

I know that there are probably no clear answers cause there are so many different factors, but I was wandering if you guys heard any theories. And also to what extent does a nations historical development (and origins), determine its present day development?

[Anileve]

Very interesting questions. I've asked some of them before to challenge someone, but I have never thought of an answer myself. The only sad answer I came up with was that "ignorance is a bliss." Indigenous people were content with their living conditions, they lacked "formal" education, thus had no interest of exploring. They lived in harmony with nature, unlike the Europeans who've abused and depleted their environment. Plus I've always argued that people in the North were generally more educated, since the weather conditions forced them to stay indoors, therefore they had to find the means of entertainment and there was more of a focus on education and contemplation of the surrounding world, while the natives enjoyed abundant forests and pleasant weather. But these are all just primitive speculations.

I also know that the first academy was founded in Greece, where the weather conditions were more congenial. I also read that Natives were very wise creatures, they were more considerate of nature and more knowledgeble about its preservation. This is of course just my opinion, mainly unsupported, just analysis. It would be interesting to explore it further. Perhaps a historian would be more predesposed to offer an explanation. Anonymouse may be of help.

[Anonymouse]

I was wandering how a society develops from the very beginning of it's tribal origins. Once tribes got organized and in some cases joined etc., some were able to form more developed civilizations than others.

 

But why did the Europeans sent explorers to the seas (eventually landing in America) instead of the Native Americans sending explorers to land and eventually colonize Europe?

 

Why did the Anglos enslave Africans instead of the other way around?

 

Why were the Chinese and some Muslims (who had more advanced civilizations than the Europens at one time) left way behind all of a sudden by the European Renaissance?

 

I know that there are probably no clear answers cause there are so many different factors, but I was wandering if you guys heard any theories. And also to what extent does a nations historical development (and origins),  determine its present day development?

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

I do not have sufficient time to answer sufficiently, but suffice to say that Europeans, or better yet, Western Civilization, has experienced something that those other civilizations have lacked to a degree, and that is individualism - the ability for the individual to express and create. This tradition is linked to its Christian heritage, which praised the individual, at least that is what early Christianity was, compared to the dry institutionalization of the Church. Nevertheless, it is this that sparked the Industrial ( capitalism ) and Scientific revolution in Europe, reawakening Greek philosophy and Roman industry. It was St. Thomas Aquinas who tied Aristotelian logic to Christian theology the long term result being modern science. Science developed in the West because nowhere else did humans have the idea that the fundamental workings of the world were comprehensible. Europeans had this idea because they believed it was created by a rational God who also created us with rational minds.

 

To the reason why Europeans explored the world was because the forces of European creativity were breaking through ( the Renaissance, which was an application of that tradition of classicism, logic, and individualism ). Looking for trade routes to China, the West was eager to trade, but the Ottoman Empire stood in its way and the West was not yet powerful enough to confront the Ottoman Empire which was at the apogee of its power. And so nagivation was on its way. Why the Europeans colonized north America, as opposed to the natives colonizing Europe, was because of different circumstances. The Christian tradition gave Europeans the belief of taming nature, and making it serve man, as a rational animal, that is, the fruits of nature can be used by man, the toolmaker, to his benefit. The natives did not believe in such a thing and practiced a primitive form of paganism.

 

As to Anglos enslaving Africans, it wasn't only Anglos enslaving Africans. Other Europeans enslaved Africans too, and moreover, Africans themselves enslaved Africans and sold it to Europeans. Slavery is still practiced in some parts of Africa. Often because of the tarbrush of political correctness truth has been relegated to the backseat for the sake of fancy and lies. Moreover, the group that profited alot from the slave trade were Jews, and this isn't meant to be anything bad, it is only a historical fact.

 

Western Civilization now is in a state of decline because the creative energies that once defined it, are now in a state of decay. A civilizations development depends on its dynamism, not its stasis, and the West is at a stasis. Arnold Toynbee noted that civlizations decay when there is "a loss of creative power in the souls of creative individuals," and when "differentiation and diversity" that once made up a dynamic civilization, is replaced by "standardization and uniformity." The emergence of a "universal state" and increased militarism, represent later stages in the disintegration of a civilization. Sound familiar with our own civilization? Carroll Quigley brilliantly showed how static conditions can lead to the collapse of civilizations, a process he directly relates to the institutionalization of what he calls the "instruments of expansion."

 

I suggest "A Study of History" by Arnold Toynbee

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/019...2992027-6786312

 

As well as "The Evolution of Civilizations" by Carroll Quigley

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/091...2992027-6786312

[Harut]

shiner, i'm sure there are bunch of studies done about the subject that you can find in the libraries.

[Nané]

seriously ... who cares?

 

it's all going to "hell" (wherever that is) anyhow

[MosJan]

seriously ... who cares? 

 

it's all going to "hell" (wherever that is) anyhow

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

 

yev inhcu iydqan negativ ???

[Nakharar]

Anon, very perceptive of you like always. I like to compare the present situation especially your last paragraph with that of the Roman empire. A seemingly all-encompassing and eternal empire being the victim of its own success and collapsing under its own weight. Self-adulation and lack of self-critique is one of the traits of inevitable downfall not only for individuals but countries/civilizations.

[Solaris]

I was wandering how a society develops from the very beginning of it's tribal origins. Once tribes got organized and in some cases joined etc., some were able to form more developed civilizations than others.

 

But why did the Europeans sent explorers to the seas (eventually landing in America) instead of the Native Americans sending explorers to land and eventually colonize Europe?

 

Why did the Anglos enslave Africans instead of the other way around?

 

Why were the Chinese and some Muslims (who had more advanced civilizations than the Europens at one time) left way behind all of a sudden by the European Renaissance?

 

I know that there are probably no clear answers cause there are so many different factors, but I was wandering if you guys heard any theories. And also to what extent does a nations historical development (and origins),  determine its present day development?

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

You're right, there are no clear answers. I'll also say that it's impossible to summarize any theories here – too many and too diverse. Philosophers of the European Enlightenment were so keen on finding answers that they produced volumes of work which is still being quoted and drawn on – Hobbes, Locke, Montesquieu (author of Eve's "climatic conditions" theory), Rousseau and many others. In later periods thinkers of all persuasions, from Malthus to Marx (and his hapless sidekick, Engels), from Freud and Levi-Strauss to Spengler and Toynbee, tried to tackle these questions in all imaginable ways. There is also a very curious piece of work by the founder of American anthropology, Lewis Morgan, entitled "Ancient Society, or Researches in the Line of Human Progress from Savagery through Barbarism to Civilization".

 

If you're really going to read some of this stuff, don't believe everything they say. It seems that none of those theories gives an adequate answer, each rather pinpoints one or a host of factors that have might influenced human development in different regions. I reckon the best for you would be to pick a couple of good textbooks on social and cultural anthropology, ethnology and sociology – they'll at least give you some clues.

[Solaris]

I do not have sufficient time to answer sufficiently, but suffice to say that Europeans, or better yet, Western Civilization, has experienced something that those other civilizations have lacked to a degree, and that is individualism - the ability for the individual to express and create.This tradition is linked to its Christian heritage, which praised the individual, at least that is what early Christianity was, compared to the dry institutionalization of the Church. Nevertheless, it is this that sparked the Industrial ( capitalism ) and Scientific revolution in Europe, reawakening Greek philosophy and Roman industry. It was St. Thomas Aquinas who tied Aristotelian logic to Christian theology the long term result being modern science. Science developed in the West because nowhere else did humans have the idea that the fundamental workings of the world were comprehensible. Europeans had this idea because they believed it was created by a rational God who also created us with rational minds........

 

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Hey Mouse, very impressive. But consider this: you link the tradition of individualism to the Christian heritage the Western civilization, while suggesting (if I got you right) that this tradition is in fact rooted in the philosophy of Ancient Greeks (I believe it is this philosophy that has influenced Christianity most, but let's leave it aside for now). What we can't ignore is that the Judo-Christian Civilization rests, in a great many respects, on the enormous layer of Greek and Roman cultures accumulated long before the era of Christianity, and to which creativity and the spirit of exploration were inherent characteristics. Above all, Greeks and Romans laid the foundations of modern science; the sources of modern political organization (electoral democracy and the rule of law) can easily be traced back to them; if it weren't for Greeks and Romans, the "classical" XVIII-XIX century thinkers, on whose ideas Western legal and political culture is largely based, would certainly have nothing to draw on.

 

My feeling is that it is not exactly the religion that has shaped the tradition of individualism in the Judo-Christian Civilization. Rather, the seeds of early Christianity found a fertile ground in the parts of the Roman Empire where its humanist-individualist values could strike root, and from where they later spread to the North. Early Christianity was the religion of dissent at the time, as Jesus was the man of the time who wanted the whole rotten system down. And it was exactly this side of Christianity that remained totally dormant until the Renaissance. It was its worst side that dominated (all religions have such a side – by definition), making it a tyrannical religion all the way. Arts and sciences did not have the chance to develop before rigid religious dogmata were effectively challenged, by dissenters who would stand up against the Church defying the risk of being burned at stake like Giordano Bruno. As far as I know there have been no similar attempts to challenge Islamic dogmata after the liberal tradition in Islam had been smothered around X-XI centuries, leaving this civilization trapped somewhere in the Middle Ages. I think it is dissent that is Europe's most precious legacy to the world. Dissent is a refusal to believe what those in power or endowed with authority would have us believe, in all ways from totalitarian tyranny to media manipulation and cultural hegemony. It is an evolutionary mechanism, if you take my meaning, the only vehicle of progress, human as well as scientific and technological. This is what lies at the heart of European XVIII century rationalism, which gave it all a kick – industrial revolution, scientific discoveries, bills of rights, liberal democracy, etc. and this is what distinguishes Judo-Christian culture from all others.

 

This however does not answer the question, what is it that makes western and northern peoples more receptive to individualist ideas, and thus to cultivate dissent, in the first place? And why is it that early Christianity spread so far westwards and to the north, and not to the regions adjacent to the area where this religion actually emerged – let's say to the Arabian Peninsula or North Africa?

Edited February 15, 2005 by Solaris

[Sasun]

Interesting question and answers above. I would like to make one point which is perhaps against the maintream understanding. What is understood by development? How do you measure if a society is developed or not? My answers is, the degree of development cannot be defined on outer development alone. Scientific and technological advancement are only a part of development. A more fundamental measure of development is a harmonious living in a society. This is dependent on the overall inner development of the individuals. So if the indigenous peoples lived in harmony with each other yet had only huts, bows and arrows then I would consider them not less developed than Euroepan aggressors equipped with sophisticated weapons but lacking basic human qualities to manage a harmonious life.

If we analyze the last couple of thousand years of history from this perspective there are not many indicators to suggest that we have learned to live in peace and harmony, yet outer knowledge (sciences and technology) have advanced tremendously. We have not become happier and more satisfied, on the contrary the world has become even more dangerous a place to live. In the distant past you could at least have plenty of places where you could live in isolation from the world where nobody would know where you were so nobody could bother your peace. Now it is not possible, every inch of land is claimed by someone and you basically have to comply with something everywhere you go. (just a small example, not a major point)

Essentially, overall we humans have become smarter but not wiser, wealtier but not healthier, more confortable in body but less comfortable at mind, etc. This I would not call an adequate development of the society but a partial and erroneous development.

[Solaris]

Interesting question and answers above. I would like to make one point which is perhaps against the maintream understanding. What is understood by development? How do you measure if a society is developed or not? My answers is, the degree of development cannot be defined on outer development alone. Scientific and technological advancement are only a part of development. A more fundamental measure of development is a harmonious living in a society. This is dependent on the overall inner development of the individuals. So if the indigenous peoples lived in harmony with each other yet had only huts, bows and arrows then I would consider them not less developed than Euroepan aggressors equipped with sophisticated weapons but lacking basic human qualities to manage a harmonious life.

If we analyze the last couple of thousand years of history from this perspective there are not many indicators to suggest that we have learned to live in peace and harmony, yet outer knowledge (sciences and technology) have advanced tremendously. We have not become happier and more satisfied, on the contrary the world has become even more dangerous a place to live. In the distant past you could at least have plenty of places where you could live in isolation from the world where nobody would know where you were so nobody could bother your peace. Now it is not possible, every inch of land is claimed by someone and you basically have to comply with something everywhere you go. (just a small example, not a major point)

Essentially, overall we humans have become smarter but not wiser, wealtier but not healthier, more confortable in body but less comfortable at mind, etc. This I would not call an adequate development of the society but a partial and erroneous development.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Unfortunately don't have enough time to answer properly, but there is this book "Development as Freedom", by a Nobel-prize winning economist, Amartya Sen (the one who became famous for saying that famines do not occur in democracies). You can find some answers there. If you don't have the time to read the book, the title will speak for itself. And if you'll still ask what freedom is, then, okay, you'll have to read the book!

[Nané]

yev inhcu iydqan  negativ ???

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

 

ok, i'll be positive

it's all going to "heaven"

[Sasun]

And if you'll still ask what freedom is, then, okay, you'll have to read the book!

style_images/master/snapback.png

I do I really need to read a book to understand what freedom is? Do you mean economic freedom? I think I have a pretty good understanding of what freedom is either way, but I realize there are subjective differences in how it is perceived.

 

If you mean that by economic development man can achieve freedom then I have to disagree, because by economic development

1) you only achieve to a certain degree of economic freedom - not absolute freedom,

2) it is quite easy to be wealthy and more unfree, the main reasaon being limited resources

there is this book "Development as Freedom", by a Nobel-prize winning economist, Amartya Sen (the one who became famous for saying that famines do not occur in democracies).

If I am not mistaken after one year of getting the nobel prize his theory proved wrong (but the prize was not revoked).

Edited February 15, 2005 by Sasun

[Siamanto]

Reading the many replies, it seems that most agree on the following:

1- The question is very interesting and challenging

2- I don't have enough time to consider it in all its details and attempt a comprehensive answer

I'm pleased to say that I agree so far!

 

 

I was wandering how a society develops from the very beginning of it's tribal origins. Once tribes got organized and in some cases joined etc., some were able to form more developed civilizations than others.

style_images/master/snapback.png

Personally, I see - at least - two different questions:

1- How a Collectivity evolves i.e. the process in itself

2- Why different Collectivities evolve

2.1 In different directions? (the direction of the process)

2.2 At different paces ? (the speed of the process)

 

I prefer to distinguish the two questions above!

 

1- How a Collectivity evolves?

Disclaimer: in what follows "evolve/develop" simply denotes change, movement. It has no positive nor negative connotations!

 

I will simply state - without discussing, for lack of time - the following:

1.1 Individuals and Collectivities evolve at different paces i.e. their dynamics have different frequencies.

1.2 Individuals evolve/change at a faster pace i.e. Individuals evolve/change with a higher frequency - i.e. more often.

1.3 The dynamics of a Collectivity represents the "average sum" of the dynamics of its member s i.e. the Individuals. That explains the relative stability of a Collectivity and it's higher resistance to change.

1.4 The Collectivity evolves/changes - i.e. the "average sum" changes - due to the - above average - excess of the dynamics of certain Individuals. Only "excessive" dynamics of Individuals can change the dynamics of a Collectivity.

1.5 In order to "average down" - i.e. integrate - the dynamics of Individuals, Collectivities "channel" - or shape - the dynamics of Individuals according to well established and "understandable/recognizable/intelligible" concepts.

1.6 Collectivities, like Individuals, age; but, at a slower pace. From infancy to adolescence, then adulthood, then...

 

In other words, Individuals may be the engine of the dynamics/Evolution, but Collectivities represent the direction, the structure, the limits and the supporting foundations.

The relative stability of a Collectivity is the foundation of Memory and "directional" History. Creativity is a characteristic of Individuals!

etc. etc.

 

2- Why different Collectivities evolve

2.1 In different directions?

2.2 At different paces ?

 

Each case may be different! Each case can only be the result of many different - and sometimes/somehow conflicting - factors! Of course, some of factors being independent of the "process of evolution" per se!

 

 

 

But why did the Europeans sent explorers to the seas (eventually landing in America) instead of the Native Americans sending explorers to land and eventually colonize Europe?

 

Why did the Anglos enslave Africans instead of the other way around?

style_images/master/snapback.png

There are many factors. Some are - among many others:

1- Technological advances favors and facilitates exploration and conquests

2- "Younger" Civilizations are somehow "barbarian!"

3- ...

 

 

 

Why were the Chinese and some Muslims (who had more advanced civilizations than the Europens at one time) left way behind all of a sudden by the European Renaissance?

style_images/master/snapback.png

Can you please remind us when Muslims had a "more advanced civilizations than the Europe[a]ns?" Thanks!

 

 

 

 

I do not have sufficient time to answer sufficiently, but suffice to say that Europeans, or better yet, Western Civilization, has experienced something that those other civilizations have lacked to a degree, and that is individualism - the ability for the individual to express and create.

style_images/master/snapback.png

I agree that it is based on Increments of Individual Creations, but I agree with Solaris that the foundation is not in Christianity.

For instance, consider the "portiques" in Ancient Greece i.e. the cynics, the stoics etc.- I don't know the English word!

 

 

 

What is understood by development? How do you measure if a society is developed or not? My answers is, the degree of development cannot be defined on outer development alone. Scientific and technological advancement are only a part of development.

style_images/master/snapback.png

A legitimate question! That is exactly why I used the word "evolution" to denote simply movement or change.

Edited February 16, 2005 by Siamanto

[shiner]

Thanks for your responses everybody!

 

Siamanto I thought the Muslims were more developed than Europe, when Europe was going through the Middle (Dark) Ages but I could be wrong

[Siamanto]

Siamanto I thought the Muslims were more developed than Europe, when Europe was going through the Middle (Dark) Ages  but I could be wrong

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

How Muslims were "more developed than Europe?" Would you care to give some examples? Thanks!

Edited February 16, 2005 by Siamanto

[shiner]

Like conquering Spain and Sicily, developing algebra and geometry, spreading their empire all the way up to India, spreading Chinese inventions like gunpowder and paper to others, preserving knowledge gained by the Greeks and Romans which was lost/forgotten by Europe after the collapse of the Roman empire, maybe even being more creative in the arts than the Europeans at that time, etc.

[Accelerated]

I think another reason could be the competitive nature of the European states. Since the collapse of Rome, the entire continent has been almost in a perpetual state of war. As adversaries sought to gain an advantage over one another they took on ideas from abroad and developed technologies at home. As we all know nothing stimulates technological advancement like the necessities brought on by war - as an example you can look at WW1 and WW2.

 

wealtier but not healthier

 

average life expectancy in Roman times in 30s, now 70+

 

How Muslims were "more developed than Europe?" Would you care to give some examples? Thanks!

 

+the fact that they could run successfully an Empire that big

+banking system

+sciences

etc.

[Siamanto]

Like conquering Spain and Sicily,

style_images/master/snapback.png

Invading and conquering another country is a sign of being "more developed!" How did I miss that?

So barbarians are "more developed!" Vikings were "more developed!" Mongols were "more developed!"

I hope that you are joking!

 

 

 

 

developing algebra and geometry,

style_images/master/snapback.png

Can you provide the facts and let us know what they have developed in "algebra and geometry" to qualify them as "more developed." It's easy and gratuitous to make statements!

 

 

 

 

spreading their empire all the way up to India,

style_images/master/snapback.png

That is a sign of being "more developed!" I really would like to understand your concept of "developed Nation/Culture."

 

 

 

 

 

spreading Chinese inventions like gunpowder and paper to others,

style_images/master/snapback.png

Of course! Spreading Chinese gunpowder and paper is a definite sign of being "more developed!"

 

 

 

 

preserving knowledge gained by the Greeks and Romans which was lost/forgotten by Europe after the collapse of the Roman empire, maybe even being more creative in the arts than the Europeans at that time, etc.

style_images/master/snapback.png

Really! Can you name where and how the Greeco-Roman heritage has been "preserved" by Muslims? Did they extensively translate? If yes, what happened to those translations? That would have helped us in better understanding Greek philosophers and thinkers!

Last, but not least, where did you "learn?" that "Europe has lost the Greeco-Roman heritage."

What is your understanding of "dark ages?"

 

 

 

maybe even being more creative in the arts than the Europeans at that time, etc.

style_images/master/snapback.png

I would like to see examples of this "more creative arts!"

 

 

 

+the fact that they could run successfully an Empire that big

+banking system

+sciences

etc.

style_images/master/snapback.png

Please see replies above!

Also, can you please provide references and explain why and how their banking system was "more developed?"

The same about sciences.

It's too easy to make statements!

Edited February 16, 2005 by Siamanto

[Accelerated]

Invading and conquering another country is a sign of being "more developed!" How did I miss that?

So barbarians are "more developed!"  Vikings were "more developed!" Mongols were "more developed!"

I hope that you are joking!

 

indeed, how else can you measure the effectiveness of a military system, except by its success? The European continent would have also been Islamised had it not been for the fanaticism of Christian knights.

 

as for science, its a widely accepted fact that the Muslim world was (far?) more advanced. Some links I found in google:

 

http://home.swipnet.se/islam/articles/HistoryofSciences.htm

 

http://www.netmuslims.com/info/inventions.html

 

http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/ihame/Sec12.htm

Edited February 16, 2005 by Accelerated

[Solaris]

Do you mean economic freedom? I think I have a pretty good understanding of what freedom is either way, but I realize there are subjective differences in how it is perceived.

 

If you mean that by economic development man can achieve freedom then I have to disagree, because by economic development

1) you only achieve to a certain degree of economic freedom - not absolute freedom,

2) it is quite easy to be wealthy and more unfree, the main reasaon being limited resources

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

I mean quite the contrary. Did you really think I was a bigoted right-wing free marketeer worshipping Milton Friedman? Funnee! No, actually I burn incense to another Nobel Laureate, Joseph Stiglitz, he of Economics of Information and leader of the opposite camp. I mentioned Sen and his book mainly because what he writes there is quite akin to your sentiments, and not the other way round. Sen in fact opposes the popular "wisdom" that human development amounts to economic development, commonly expressed in GDP per capita. The thrust of his argument is that human freedom is both end to, and a crucial set of means to, human development. Development is the very process of expanding the real freedoms that people have, in order to enable him to live longer, better, more meaningful and productive lives.

 

The process of development is the process of removing obstacles to this real human freedom, which may come in a variety of forms. Sometimes the lack of substantive freedoms relates directly to economic poverty, which robs people of their freedom to satisfy hunger, or to obtain remedies to treatable illnesses, or to be sufficiently clothed, etc. In other cases, the unfreedom links closely to the lack of public facilities and social care, such as the absence of epidemiological programmes, or of organized arrangements for health care or educational facilities, or of effective institutions for the maintenance of local peace and order. In still other cases violation of freedom results directly from a denial of political and civil liberties and from imposed restrictions on the freedom to participation in the social, political and economic life of the country. Therefore, the point of public policy is the removal of obstacles to human freedom.

 

Moreover, human freedom is itself a means to a goal of human freedom and there are mutually reinforcing interconnections between different sorts of human freedoms. What people can positively achieve is influenced by economic opportunities, political liberties, social powers, and the enabling conditions of good health and education, but it is also true that institutional arrangements for those opportunities are also influenced by the exercise of people's freedoms through the liberty to participate in social choices and in the making of public decisions that impel the progress of these opportunities.

 

If I am not mistaken after one year of getting the nobel prize his theory proved wrong (but the prize was not revoked).

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Honestly I don't know. Proved wrong by whom? Well, as you may know, the First Law of Economists is: for every economist, there exists an equal and opposite economist. The Second Law of Economists: they're both wrong. Sen got the prize in 1998 for "his contributions to the welfare economics", or something like that. As far as I know, there was nothing in 1999 or 2000 that shook the foundations of welfare economics to the point of rendering Sen's work invalid. Besides, one year surely wouldn't be enough to "prove" an economist wrong, since they all promise the Moon "in the long run", and in the long run, according to Lord Keynes, we are all dead. Okay, I won't argue over something I don't know. Tell me more, even if you're confusing him with someone, I'd like to know which Economics Laurate proved wrong...

Edited February 16, 2005 by Solaris

[Solaris]

How Muslims were "more developed than Europe?" Would you care to give some examples? Thanks!

Can you provide the facts and let us know what they have developed in "algebra and geometry" to qualify them as "more developed." It's easy and gratuitous to make statements!

 

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

 

as for science, its a widely accepted fact that the Muslim world was (far?) more advanced. Some links I found in google:

 

http://home.swipnet.se/islam/articles/HistoryofSciences.htm

 

http://www.netmuslims.com/info/inventions.html

 

http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/ihame/Sec12.htm

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Hey Siamanto, this is pretty much what I had in mind when mentioning "the liberal tradition" in Islamic culture that was smothered in the beginning of the Second Millennium. I guess here I'll return you your own words that we all come from different backgrounds, and sometimes should take the chance to learn from each other, instead of heading to a frontal attack when someone mentions something we don't happen to know.

[Solaris]

http://inhome.rediff.com/money/2003/oct/11happy.htm

Nigerians happiest people, Indians 21st

 

Agencies | October 11, 2003 16:58 IST

 

 

Money, says a study, may not have much to do with human happiness.

 

A survey of 65 countries, published by British magazine New Scientist, says that Nigerians are the happiest people on earth, followed by the Mexicans. Venezuela, El Salvador and Puerto Rico are close behind.

 

India has been ranked 21st in the world happiness index.

 

Nigeria, with an annual per capita gross national product of slightly over $300, ranks among the world's poorest as also the most corrupt countries.

 

By contrast Romanians, Russians, and Armenians are the unhappiest people of all the countries surveyed.

 

However, different countries and cultures give priority to varied factors while determining what constitutes happiness. For the Indians, family, society values and friends were the prime factors for being happy, while for the Americans, personal success, pride and self-esteem ranked topmost.

 

The Japanese, somewhat like the Indians, said that living up to family and society expectations constituted happiness.

 

The Pakistanis were just two slots behind the Indians and were ranked the 23rd happiest people.

 

Canada stood 11th, Australia 13th, the United States 15th, the United Kingdom 16th and Japan 20th.

 

The World Values Survey study was carried out in 1999-2001 and published for the first time by New Scientist. The survey is conducted once every four years, and tracks socio-cultural and political changes across the world.

 

The survey shows that natives of Latin America, western Europe and North America are much happier than their counterparts in Eastern Europe and Russia.

 

The survey fortifies the belief held by priests and monks that the desire for material goods suppresses happiness. In the developed world, happiness levels have more or less remained stagnant since the World War II, although there has been a tremendous rise in incomes in these nations. Except in Denmark, where people seem to have become more satisfied over the last thirty years.

 

The study says that the reason for the lack of rise in happiness levels in the developed world is linked to consumerism.

 

And yes, here's something more to think about. The survey shows that married people are happier than those who are single.

[Anonymouse]

Hey Mouse, very impressive.  But  consider this: you link the tradition of individualism to the Christian heritage the Western civilization, while suggesting (if I got you right) that this tradition is in fact rooted in the philosophy of Ancient Greeks (I believe it is this philosophy that has influenced Christianity most, but let's leave it aside for now). What we can't ignore is that the Judo-Christian Civilization rests, in a great many respects, on the enormous layer of Greek and Roman cultures accumulated long before the era of Christianity, and to which creativity and the spirit of exploration were inherent characteristics. Above all, Greeks and Romans laid the foundations of modern science; the sources of modern political organization (electoral democracy and the rule of law) can easily be traced back to them; if it weren't for Greeks and Romans, the "classical" XVIII-XIX century thinkers, on whose ideas Western legal and political culture is largely based, would certainly have nothing to draw on.

 

My point was that Christianity by far introduced that spirit of individualism (individual salvation and liberty, for example) to the European than anything prior to it, not to take anything away from the Greek or Roman tradition which in their own way lay this tradition. However, it was the Greeks who introduced democracy, and the mob, which stifles individualism, and creativity and dissent. It was democracy and the mob that condemned Socrates. When we mean individualism, we speak of liberty, and liberty comes from that Christian tradition. It was Lord Acton that said, "Liberty has not subsisted outside of Christianity." There is that saying that our civilization rests on the death of two persons, a philosopher (Socrates), and the Son of God (if you believe), both victims of popular will. Therefore, Democracy, is not part of the equation of liberty and individualism, quite the contrary. Christianity shattered the unity of the ancient pagan world. The source of that unity was the State with an Emperor, thought to be a god or god-like. The unity of the ancient, pagan world consisted of the divinization of the temporal order in the form of the State, whereas Christianity recognized no earthly power, and which is why I call Christianity, in its early and original form, a religion of anarchy, and I call Jesus an anarchist.

 

My feeling is that it is not exactly the religion that has shaped the tradition of individualism in the Judo-Christian Civilization. Rather, the seeds of early Christianity found a fertile ground in the parts of the Roman Empire where its humanist-individualist values could strike root, and from where they later spread to the North. Early Christianity was the religion of dissent at the time, as Jesus was the man of the time who wanted the whole rotten system down. And it was exactly this side of Christianity that remained totally dormant until the Renaissance. It was its worst side that dominated (all religions have such a side – by definition), making it a tyrannical religion all the way. Arts and sciences did not have the chance to develop before rigid religious dogmata were effectively challenged, by dissenters who would stand up against the Church defying the risk of being burned at stake like Giordano Bruno. As far as I know there have been no similar attempts to challenge Islamic dogmata after the liberal tradition in Islam had been smothered around X-XI centuries, leaving this civilization trapped somewhere in the Middle Ages. I think it is dissent that is Europe's most precious legacy to the world. Dissent is a refusal to believe what those in power or endowed with authority would have us believe, in all ways from totalitarian tyranny to media manipulation and cultural hegemony. It is an evolutionary mechanism, if you take my meaning, the only vehicle of progress, human as well as scientific and technological. This is what lies at the heart of European XVIII century rationalism, which gave it all a kick – industrial revolution, scientific discoveries, bills of rights, liberal democracy, etc. and this is what distinguishes Judo-Christian culture from all others.

 

I think you are including too many things under one umbrella which makes it difficult to decipher, but the point of civilization, and particularly Western Civilization, is that precisely because of Christianity do we have the tradition of liberty, of free markets, of capitalism, and property rights. And as I mentioned, it was St. Thomas Aquinas who tied Aristotelian logic to theology, and laying the groundwork for modern science. Most importantly, it was the Scholastics that saw the importance of private property, and lay the seeds of the free market tradition.

 

http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=1267

 

You are correct in that dissent is Europe's most powerful tradition, its ability to remain resilient and adapt to new ways, which other civilizations and peoples have lagged behind. It is this anarchy of individual liberty that allows for creativity and the constant blooming of civilization. It is too much government, too much State, and too much militarism which stifles individual liberty, thereby individual creativity. Civilizations prosper in the time of peace, not war, because they are able to put their energies toward creative ends, not destructive ends.

 

This however does not answer the question, what is it that makes western and northern peoples more receptive to individualist ideas, and thus to cultivate dissent, in the first place? And why is it that early Christianity spread so far westwards and to the north, and not to the regions adjacent to the area where this religion actually emerged – let's say to the Arabian Peninsula or North Africa?

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

That question is easy. The reason that individualism succeeded in Europe and why Christianity awakened the light of that power of liberty, is because of the people. Each people is different and the culture of each people is unique to them, for culture is nothing more than the outward reflection of a people. Two peoples may take the same concept, and apply it to themselves, yet it will have entirely different effects on different peoples. Why is it that Christianity spread to Europeans who were able to adapt its tenets and take its core of individualism, yet the same Christianity which spread in other peoples, did not give the same results? Why is it that the Industrial revolution started first in Europe, in Britain in particular, and not any where else? Why is it that the Muslim world once excelled in science and arts ( holding on to the traditions of antiquity ), and was never able to rise again to any vibrant position. The decline and fall of civilizations have been an enigma to people, yet they are not as difficult to decipher as some of our posts on this forum.

[Solaris]

My point was that Christianity by far introduced that spirit of individualism (individual salvation and liberty, for example) to the European than anything prior to it, not to take anything away from the Greek or Roman tradition which in their own way lay this tradition. However, it was the Greeks who introduced democracy, and the mob, which stifles individualism, and creativity and dissent. It was democracy and the mob that condemned Socrates. When we mean individualism, we speak of liberty, and liberty comes from that Christian tradition. It was Lord Acton that said, "Liberty has not subsisted outside of Christianity." There is that saying that our civilization rests on the death of two persons, a philosopher (Socrates), and the Son of God (if you believe), both victims of popular will. Therefore, Democracy, is not part of the equation of liberty and individualism, quite the contrary. Christianity shattered the unity of the ancient pagan world. The source of that unity was the State with an Emperor,  thought to be a god or god-like. The unity of the ancient, pagan world consisted of the divinization of the temporal order in the form of the State, whereas Christianity recognized no earthly power, and which is why I call Christianity, in its early and original form, a religion of anarchy, and I call Jesus an anarchist.

I think you are including too many things under one umbrella which makes it difficult to decipher, but the point of civilization, and particularly Western Civilization, is that precisely because of Christianity do we have the tradition of liberty, of free markets, of capitalism, and property rights. And as I mentioned, it was St. Thomas Aquinas who tied Aristotelian logic to theology, and laying the groundwork for modern science. Most importantly, it was the Scholastics that saw the importance of private property, and lay the seeds of the free market tradition.

 

http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=1267

 

You are correct in that dissent is Europe's most powerful tradition, its ability to remain resilient and adapt to new ways, which other civilizations and peoples have lagged behind. It is this anarchy of individual liberty that allows for creativity and the constant blooming of civilization. It is too much government, too much State, and too much militarism which stifles individual liberty, thereby individual creativity. Civilizations prosper in the time of peace, not war, because they are able to put their  energies toward creative ends, not destructive ends. 

That question is easy. The reason that individualism succeeded in Europe and why Christianity awakened the light of that power of liberty, is because of the people. Each people is different and the culture of each people is unique to them, for culture is nothing more than the outward reflection of a people. Two peoples may take the same concept, and apply it to themselves, yet it will have entirely different effects on different peoples. Why is it that Christianity spread to Europeans who were able to adapt its tenets and take its core of individualism, yet the same Christianity which spread in other peoples, did not give the same results? Why is it that the Industrial revolution started first in Europe, in Britain in particular, and not any where else? Why is it that the Muslim world once excelled in science and arts ( holding on to the traditions of antiquity ), and was never able to rise again to any vibrant position. The decline and fall of civilizations have been an enigma to people, yet they are not as difficult to decipher as some of our posts on this forum.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Hey Mouse the Anarchist, I'll tell you this much – electoral democracy is always preferable to totalitarianism, and liberal democracy is always preferable to electoral democracy. The kind you are talking about, "pure" democracy, or the unfettered majority rule, does not exist any more and was essentially self-destructive. You obviously know this perfectly well, which gives me certain grounds to question your bone fide . I don't mean to say that the existing forms of liberal democracy are perfect, but as Churchill put it, it is the worst form of government ever invented, with the exception of every other form that came before it. In a liberal democracy Socrates is at least alive and kicking, enjoying his academic freedom and free speech. Mutatis mutandis, the same applies to Jesus, no matter whether he had a supernatural poppa or not. By the way, determining Jesus' political colour is a tricky business - he seemed to be more attracted to the pinker end of the spectrum… And please spare me the Scholastics !!!!!!

 

I won't go into more detail and will just repeat what I've already told you before – don't believe everything you read. There is a lot of crap on the Internet, besides, Nozick is not the only philosopher in the world, neither is Hayek. You may want to diversify your reading list, with Karl Popper or Jack Donnelly, for a change!