How Does A Society Develop?

[Armen]

Armen,

2- I consider the relevance of "Arab Scientists" on the Europeasn Renaissance as anecdotal and mainly a speculation.

The Crusades gave an impetus because it crystallized and channeled the energies.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Siamanto, I agree with Stormy entirely. I don't know what is wrong with you (maybe you don't like the Algerians in Paris streets) but the cultural and scientific legacy of Arabic Khalifat is very well documented. Tons of literature on the interactions between the Crusaders and Arabs. Europeans got the knowledge of the compas, paper production and gunpowder from the Arabs who brought it from their conquests and interaction in China.

 

Consider the influence of Arabs in Andalousia. Would Spain be the same Spain if not for the Arabs?

[Armen]

Arab culture is an amalgamation of Byzantine statescraft, Persian architecture and anicient Greek scholarship.

I can make a similar generalisation about almost each and every civilisation. Roman culture was amalgamation of Greek something, Egyptian something etc.

It was only a conduit, a transitionary culture which granted, used these influences very well. Assyrian scholars preserved the ancient Greek manuscripts and translated them into Arabic. Islam gave them a temporary spark which proved to be very impressive in the beginning, but couldn't last because of its fragile base.

style_images/master/snapback.png

Why are you dissecting a legacy into small pieces to prove something? Many Arabic Khalifas were not ethnic Arabs anyway. Does this change anything?

[Stormig]

Anecdotes because Siamanto says so. Muahz.

[Siamanto]

modern individualism (Western individualism), Anonymouse and others noted, was influenced and created by Reneisance thinkers, who in turn were influenced by medieval Christian thought, which got its basic impetus for scientific knowledge through the Arabs after the Crusades.

2- I consider the relevance of "Arab Scientists" on the European Renaissance as anecdotal and mainly a speculation.

The Crusades gave an impetus because it crystallized and channeled the energies.

I don't know what is wrong with you (maybe you don't like the Algerians in Paris streets) but the cultural and scientific legacy of Arabic Khalifat is very well documented. Tons of literature on the interactions between the Crusaders and Arabs. Europeans got the knowledge of the compas, paper production and gunpowder from the Arabs who brought it from their conquests and interaction in China.

style_images/master/snapback.png

style_images/master/snapback.png

style_images/master/snapback.png

Armen,

If you read carefully, you should realize that I did not deny the existence of Arab - and non-Arab - scientists within the territories of the Empire that they have founded and ruled. Neither, I have denied interactions between the two Civilizations.

(By the way, interactions often involve bilateral exchanges.)

 

What I have questioned is:

1- The relevance of "Arab Scientists" on the European Renaissance and Sciences in general. I maintain that the European Renaissance and Sciences would have developed the way they did with or without the interactions with the Arabs and Muslims. The impact of these few inventions would be comparable to the impact of a successful start-up on the US Economy! In other words, negligible!

Western Philosophy and Science has been founded in "Greece" and occasional interactions with Arabs - or any other Civilization - has been of little relevance for its achievements! If you think otherwise, you need to

1- Provide examples

2- Assess their impact i.e. relevance on the path/History of Western Philosophy and Science

 

All the "anecdotal evidence" mentioned in this thread is old news i.e. already integrated!

 

I'm simply questioning their relevance and believe that they are far too over-rated!

 

Most of all, you seem to be confusing the Fundamental Essence of a given Civilization - the equivalent of a Genetic Code - and the occasional interactions with other Civilizations - of accidental nature.

 

 

 

Consider the influence of Arabs in Andalousia. Would Spain be the same Spain if not for the Arabs?

style_images/master/snapback.png

The Spanish Culture would have been close enough to what it is to day. Close enough that the difference would have been imperceptible!

Again, one should not make a confusion between the Essence of a Culture - the equivalent of a Genetic Code - and interactions

that are of accidental nature.

 

PS. I may or may not like Algerians, Maghrebins or Arabs in general; shall I assume that you have a fascination for Arabs?

Edited February 20, 2005 by Siamanto

[Armen]

Armen,

We seem to have very different - not even opposite - understandings of  Individualism.

Your understanding of Individualism is new to me. It is apparently based on the works and thinking of Hermetics, mine - closer to the Nietzsche - is based on

1- The concepts of "Aristocrat," "Warrior" and/or "Samurai"  i.e. aiming for individual virtues and excellence

2- The dialectics of Individuals vs Groups and the awareness of the irreducibility of the former to the latter

My nature is such that I never had an interest in those - somehow "obscure/occultist" -  alchemist/spiritualist systems such as the Hermetics, the Kabbalists etc.

 

Here is the popular notion of individualism:

 

        1. Belief in the primary importance of the individual and in the virtues of self-reliance and personal independence.

        2. Acts or an act based on this belief.

 

        1. A doctrine advocating freedom from government regulation in the pursuit of a person's economic goals.

        2. A doctrine holding that the interests of the individual should take precedence over the interests of the state or social group.

 

        1. The quality of being an individual; individuality.

        2. An individual characteristic; a quirk.

 

Siamanto, my understanding of individualism is not different. Also, the fact that I read about Hermetism or Kabbalism does not make me one of them. And your nature, that finds no interest in reading such, is called arrogance. Egyptians (the Hermetists particularly) were the first to understand death and its nature (The Book of the Dead). That helped them to develop the understanding on individualism.

 

Siamanto, if you do not have interest in reading about occultism consider why is Nietzsche (someone you might respect) using Zaratushtra in his dialogue. Would you consider to read who was Zaratushtra and why Nietzsche chose him specifically?

 

Also, I have a quite different interpretation of historical "facts."

1- Of course, it may be the case that in the Hellenic city of Alexandria, Greeks have been exposed to Egyptian Philosophy and integrated some of its elements into their thinking, but I don't think the exchange was unilateral.

I agree with Anonymouse, that Greek and Western Philosophy/Science have little to do with Egyptian Philosophy/Science.

For instance, Egyptian Geometry and Arithmetic were empirical in essence; while Greek Geometry was axiomatic and based on the awareness that it transcends the empirical world. (Consider the discovery of irrational numbers.)

The same applies to Plato's Ontology, the same is true of Aristotle's Logic: it is more deductive than inductive.

Western Science and Philosophy could not have developed as it did, if based solely on empirical principles.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Sure there was exchange of influences. But you contradict yourslef by saying that there was no influence whatsoever. Egypt and Greece traded intensively and I believe the people in Greece then had less arrogance than you and tried to study what they saw in Egypt. And this does not mean that Greeks did not develop anything for themselves. Maybe the knowledge they got from Egypt helped them to develop the consciousness that led them to original inventions.

 

The info on Greek-Egyptian interaction is there on the net. Search and read if you're interested.

[Armen]

style_images/master/snapback.png

What I have questioned is:

1- The relevance of "Arab Scientists" on the European Renaissance and Sciences in general. I maintain that the European Renaissance and Sciences would have developed the way they did with or without the interactions with the Arabs and Muslims. The impact of these few inventions would be comparable to the impact of a successful start-up on the US Economy!

1- Provide examples

2- Assess their impact i.e. relevance on the path/History of Western Philosophy and Science

 

Siamanto, are you making fun of me? You're basically saying that if Windows was not invented by Microsoft, someone else would have invented it. Duh...

 

Enteratain yourself about how Compass had huge imact on navigation. Arabs brought it from China. I think this is a very good example.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compass

 

All the "anecdotal evidence" mentioned in this thread is old news i.e. already integrated!

I'm simply questioning their relevance and believe that they are far too over-rated!

Most of all, you seem to be confusing the Fundamental Essence of a given Civilization - the equivalent of a Genetic Code - and the occasional interactions with other Civilizations - of accidental nature.

The Spanish Culture would have been close enough to what it is to day. Close enough that the difference would have been imperceptible!

Again, one should not make a confusion between the Essence of a Culture - the equivalent of a Genetic Code - and  interactions

that are of accidental nature.

This is irrelevant as far a the fact of influence is concerned. Accidental or non-accidental it happened. And it was as big as a an almost irreplaceble tool for navigation.

PS. I may or may not like Algerians, Maghrebins or Arabs in general; shall I assume that you have a fascination for Arabs?

style_images/master/snapback.png

You don't have to assume. I can assure you I am fascinated by many things in Arabic culture and history.

Edited February 20, 2005 by Armen

[Siamanto]

Siamanto, are you making fun of me? You're basically saying that if Windows was not invented by Microsoft, someone else would have invented it. Duh...

 

Enteratain yourself about how Compass had huge imact on navigation. Arabs brought it from China. I think this is a very good example.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compass

style_images/master/snapback.png

No, I was not making fun of you!

However, I should thank you for a great example of - addition to - what I called "Anecdote and Fairy Tales."

 

First of all, it is hard to understand what you perceive as unique in MS Windows?

1- A better designed, architected and implemented Operating System existed before MS Windows (For the record, when first released MS Windows was only a Windowing System. The OS was DOS.)

2- A better designed, architected and implemented Windowing System existed before MS Windows. In fact, MS Windows remains a poor version of what X was in 1984!

Most of all, it is so obvious that others would have marketed - and did - a comparable OS that I would consider it a mere platitude.

 

Furthermore, many think that the contribution of Microsoft to Computer Science has been rather negative. Personally, I believe that Computer Science would have advanced with or without Microsoft in a comparable manner.

Last but not least, the work of Logicians such as Russell, Wittgenstein and Frege. The "Ontological Methodologies" conceived and developed by philosophers - including Aristotle - had a more significant contribution than Microsoft in the advancement of Software Development and Computer Science, in the form of

1- Object Oriented Design

2- ER (Entity/Relationship) Data Modeling

3- Relational Databases

 

 

You seem to be confusing

a- Advancements in Fundamental Sciences

b- Technological Innovations

c- Mass Production of Technologies.

The difference is "ler ou tsor!" Microsoft contributed in the Mass Production of a Technological Innovation!

 

Again, I sincerely thank you for an excellent example of what I call "Anecdote & Fairy Tale!"

 

 

 

 

Enteratain yourself about how Compass had huge imact on navigation. Arabs brought it from China. I think this is a very good example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compass

style_images/master/snapback.png

I have entertained myself on many occasions about the impact of Technological Innovations and their Mass production on Fundamental Scientific Discoveries. My previous statements were based on the result of such activities. The work of epistemologists of early/mid 20th Century may help you!

 

Engineering - not Sciences - is such that they would have found another solution! As simple as that!

 

Please "entertain yourself" contemplating the impact of the following examples of Fundamental Scientific Discoveries/contributions:

1- The discovery of irrational numbers that resulted in the foundation of Axiomatic Geometry (Thales/Phytagoras.)

2- The "Galois Theory."

3- The work of Godel

 

 

 

 

All the "anecdotal evidence" mentioned in this thread is old news i.e. already integrated!

 

I'm simply questioning their relevance and believe that they are far too over-rated!

 

Most of all, you seem to be confusing the Fundamental Essence of a given Civilization - the equivalent of a Genetic Code - and the occasional interactions with other Civilizations - of accidental nature.

The Spanish Culture would have been close enough to what it is to day. Close enough that the difference would have been imperceptible!

Again, one should not make a confusion between the Essence of a Culture - the equivalent of a Genetic Code - and  interactions

that are of accidental nature.

This is irrelevant as far a the fact of influence is concerned. Accidental or non-accidental it happened. And it was as big as a an almost irreplaceble tool for navigation.

style_images/master/snapback.png

style_images/master/snapback.png

It's hard to tell what "this" refers to in your reply. In any case, the point was that

1- You seem to be confusing between Advancement in Fundamental Sciences and Technological Innovations.

2- In your assessment, the impact of the few Technological Innovations are over-rated

3- There is a fundametal difference between European Philosophy/Science and Arab/Muslim/Oriental/...

 

Engineering - not Sciences - is such that they would have found another solution! As simple as that!

Edited February 21, 2005 by Siamanto

[Siamanto]

Here is the popular notion of individualism:

style_images/master/snapback.png

OK! Thank you! And???

 

 

 

 

Siamanto, my understanding of individualism is not different.

style_images/master/snapback.png

That is a bit confusing!

In fact, according to your previous post, only few did have and understanding and/or were "consciously talking about it." As far as I know, most - if not all - Cultures had the equivalent of warrior/aristocrat. Most - if not all - Cultures were aware in the dialectics of Individual/Group!

In any case, I'm glad we agree!

 

 

 

Also, the fact that I read about Hermetism or Kabbalism does not make me one of them.

style_images/master/snapback.png

Did I say that? I'm sorry if you got that impression!

 

 

 

And your nature, that finds no interest in reading such, is called arrogance.

style_images/master/snapback.png

No, it's not arrogance; it's called "preference." I have very close friends that I highly respect who have read - and had a lot of interest - in such readings/theories.

I don't see your reasoning! Sorry!

 

 

 

 

Egyptians (the Hermetists particularly) were the first to understand death and its nature (The Book of the Dead). That helped them to develop the understanding on individualism.

style_images/master/snapback.png

"First to understand!!!!"

So what was their understanding? You have been constantly mentioning them, yet none of their views/theories have been elicited so far! Would you care to enlighten us? Thanks!

 

 

 

 

 

Siamanto, if you do not have interest in reading about occultism consider why is Nietzsche (someone you might respect) using Zaratushtra in his dialogue. Would you consider to read who was Zaratushtra and why Nietzsche chose him specifically?

style_images/master/snapback.png

What is the point? Thanks!

Why are you assuming I don't know what/where are the origins of Zarathustra?

 

 

 

 

 

Sure there was exchange of influences. But you contradict yourslef by saying that there was no influence whatsoever.

style_images/master/snapback.png

When did I say that "there was no influence whatsoever?" Let's try to a bit more reasonable and fair! Thanks!

 

 

 

 

Egypt and Greece traded intensively and I believe the people in Greece then had less arrogance than you and tried to study what they saw in Egypt. And this does not mean that Greeks did not develop anything for themselves.

style_images/master/snapback.png

I'm afraid that the conversation is degenerating!

 

 

 

Maybe the knowledge they got from Egypt helped them to develop the consciousness that led them to original inventions.

The info on Greek-Egyptian interaction is there on the net. Search and read if you're interested.

style_images/master/snapback.png

Of course it did! Please read my previous replies!

1- Of course, it may be the case that in the Hellenic city of Alexandria, Greeks have been exposed to Egyptian Philosophy and integrated some of its elements into their thinking, but I don't think the exchange was unilateral.

I agree with Anonymouse, that Greek and Western Philosophy/Science have little to do with Egyptian Philosophy/Science.

For instance, Egyptian Geometry and Arithmetic were empirical in essence; while Greek Geometry was axiomatic and based on the awareness that it transcends the empirical world. (Consider the discovery of irrational numbers.)

The same applies to Plato's Ontology, the same is true of Aristotle's Logic: it is more deductive than inductive.

Western Science and Philosophy could not have developed as it did, if based solely on empirical principles.

......

Note: I am aware that some of what is known as "Greek" originated in Anatolia, Persia or Hellenic Cities of the Mediterranean.

style_images/master/snapback.png

[Armen]

No, I was not making fun of you! 

However, I should thank you for a great example of - addition to -  what I called "Anecdote and Fairy Tale."

 

Siamanto, you are slowly but constantly moving towards becoming a realy good fairy taliy anecdote What can be more non-anecdotal than a damn Compass. Now tell me. Who invented compass and how did it get to Europe? Was it a significant tool?

 

First of all, it is hard to understand what you perceive as unique in MS Windows?

1- A better designed, architected and implemented Operating System existed before MS Windows (For the record, when first released MS Windows was only a Windowing System. The OS was DOS.)

2- A better designed, architected and implemented Windowing System existed before MS Windows. In fact, MS Windows remains a poor version of what X was in 1984!

Most of all, it is so obvious that others would have marketed - and did - a comparable OS that I would consider it a mere platitude.

Furthermore, many think that the contribution of Microsoft to Computer Science has been rather negative. Personally, I believe that Computer Science would have advanced with or without Microsoft in a comparable manner.

Last but not least,  the work of Logicians such as Russell, Wittgenstein and Frege. The "Ontological Methodologies" conceived and developed by philosophers - including Aristotle - had a more significant contribution in the advancement of Software Development in the forms of

1- Object Oriented Design

2- Data Modeling

 

You seem to be confusing

  a- Advancements in Fundamental Sciences

  b- Technological Innovations

  c- Mass Production of Technologies.

The difference is "ler ou tsor!" Microsoft contributed in the Mass Production of a Technological Innovation!

Again, I sincerely thank you for an excellent example of what I call "Anecdote & Fairy Tale!"

 

The whole Widows thing was an example of your logic. Let's forget Microsoft. Let's take the example of your favourite scientists that you were uncareful enough to mention. By undermining the impact of Arabic influence you were basically saying that if there where no Russell, Wittgenstein and Frege, there would be others who would research and find what they found. Does this mean that their work was not great?

 

The three fields of advancement you mentioned are very ture but I am not confusing them. The Arab contribution in the aforementioned "Compass case" does not fall under any category. Arabs just took the Compass and transported it to Middle East where the Europeans saw it. You can call that category: d- Crucial Case of Transportation. But it was a threshold, a new era I would say, in navigation.

 

Engineering - not Sciences - is such that they would have found another solution! As simple as that!

 

Have you studyed all other fields where the Arabs contributed? Except maths and engeneering?

 

Please "entertain yourself" contemplating the impact of the following examples of Fundamental Scientific Discoveries/contributions:

 

http://members.fortunecity.com/kokhuitan/greek.html

 

Thank you for this link actually. It provids some very interesting facts about Egypt's influence on the Greeks. For example:

 

The first great Greek mathematician is Thales of Miletus (624-547 BC). He brought the knowledge of Egyptian Geometry to the Greeks and discovered several theorems in elementary Geometry.

 

It is interesting that the first Greek mathematician was educated in Egypt.

 

Engineering - not Sciences - is such that they would have found another solution! As simple as that!

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Human nature is such that there would be another "Aristotel" if the original was not there. Siamanto, I can't believe I said this last sentence

[Siamanto]

No, I was not making fun of you! 

However, I should thank you for a great example of - addition to -  what I called "Anecdote and Fairy Tales."

 

First of all, it is hard to understand what you perceive as unique in MS Windows?

....

 

(Armen)

Siamanto, you are slowly but constantly moving towards becoming a realy good fairy taliy anecdote      What can be more non-anecdotal than a damn Compass. Now tell me. Who invented compass and how did it get to Europe? Was it a significant tool?

style_images/master/snapback.png

(/Armen)

 

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Armen, with all due respect, "you are slowly but constantly moving towards becoming" either emotional or juvenile! and failing to understand what is meant.

It was about your "masterpiece" - or what you probably thought it was:

Siamanto...You're basically saying that if Windows was not invented by Microsoft, someone else would have invented it. Duh...

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

You could and should have noticed that my reply about the compass came later! Read more carefully!

 

 

 

Siamanto, are you making fun of me? You're basically saying that if Windows was not invented by Microsoft, someone else would have invented it. Duh...

....

The whole Widows thing was an example of your logic.

style_images/master/snapback.png

style_images/master/snapback.png

What!!!! No comments! Trying to save face? Nice try!

 

 

 

 

Let's forget Microsoft. Let's take the example of your favourite scientists that you were uncareful enough to mention. By undermining the impact of Arabic influence you were basically saying that if there where no Russell, Wittgenstein and Frege, there would be others who would research and find what they found. Does this mean that their work was not great?

style_images/master/snapback.png

Did you read my post? What are you talking about? The context was your "masterpiece" - that miserably failed you - about Microsoft!

Allow me to quote myself:

Last but not least, the work of Logicians such as Russell, Wittgenstein and Frege. The "Ontological Methodologies" conceived and developed by philosophers - including Aristotle - had a more significant contribution than Microsoft in the advancement of Software Development and Computer Science, in the form of

1- Object Oriented Design

2- ER (Entity/Relationship) Data Modeling

3- Relational Databases

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

You're not thinking clear! Please get hold of your emotions! Thanks!

By the way, how did you manage to put together Arabs and Russell and...

Wow! What a mess!

Also, what makes you think that they are my "favourite scientists?" I don't know if I would call Wittgenstein a scientist! Do you know who they are? Wht only these three?

What a fruitless converstaion!

 

 

 

The three fields of advancement you mentioned are very ture but I am not confusing them. The Arab contribution in the aforementioned "Compass case" does not fall under any category. Arabs just took the Compass and transported it to Middle East where the Europeans saw it. You can call that category: d- Crucial Case of Transportation.

style_images/master/snapback.png

What's your point? What a fruitless conversation!

 

 

 

 

But it was a threshold, a new era I would say, in navigation.

style_images/master/snapback.png

Of course, we would have been lost without the Arabs and the compass!

I've already answered this question. Read again!

 

 

 

 

Have you studyed all other fields where the Arabs contributed? Except maths and engeneering?

http://members.fortunecity.com/kokhuitan/greek.html

style_images/master/snapback.png

Why? What's your point? Is your memory that short?

 

 

 

 

Thank you for this link actually. It provids some very interesting facts about Egypt's influence on the Greeks. For example:

It is interesting that the first Greek mathematician was educated in Egypt.

style_images/master/snapback.png

With all due respect, you are becoming a little "juvenile!"

I know what I have provided and your obstination to focus on the Greek-Egyptian exchanges is a bit....Can you go on step beyond that?

I don't want to quote myself for a third time!

 

The point was clear.

 

Also, I gave you examples of Fundamental Scientific Discoveries. Honestly, I seriously doubt that you are capable of understanding their importance and impact on Science! You probably have no clue of what they are or how fundamental they are!

This is a challenge!

Edited February 21, 2005 by Siamanto

[Armen]

Siamanto,

 

So that I don't become emotional and juvenile let me state my points again:

 

1. Greeks got their first knowledge about mathematics from Egypt because, for example, the first known Greek mathematician was educated in Egypt. And this was a tremedous impulse for the development of maths in Greece.

 

2. Arabs had huge civilisational impact on Europe. One example is that they helped to introduce compass to Europe. And this is an established fact. It is in no way an anecdote or a fairy tale.

 

3. Individualism: I think our conversation about this will indeed be fruitless. So I'll stop here.

[Siamanto]

Siamanto,

 

So that I don't become emotional and juvenile let me state my points again:

 

1. Greeks got their first knowledge about mathematics from Egypt because, for example, the first known Greek mathematician was educated in Egypt. And this was a tremedous impulse for the development of maths in Greece.

style_images/master/snapback.png

I see that you managed to "cut and paste" from the link that I have provided! Congratulations!

Unfortunately, you have chosen to selectively "cat and paste!"

 

 

 

2. Arabs had huge civilisational impact on Europe. One example is that they helped to introduce compass to Europe. And this is an established fact. It is in no way an anecdote or a fairy tale.

style_images/master/snapback.png

I have already replied to this "Anecdote & Fairy Tale."

It's a shame that you lack the courage to take the challenge to understand the impact of the three Scientific Discoveries that I have mentioned!

 

 

 

3. Individualism: I think our conversation about this will indeed be fruitless. So I'll stop here.

style_images/master/snapback.png

Again, can't take the challenge to elicit the views/theories of those who were the "first" to understand Individualism?

Edited February 21, 2005 by Siamanto

[Armen]

I see that you  managed to "cut and paste" from the link that I have provided! Congratulations! 

If you're refusing to read from your own link I have to cut and paste them for you because there are no options left.

Unfortunately, you have chosen to selectively "cat and paste!"

Well, I selected that part specifically to show you the strong Egyptian-Greek link with Greeks borrowing maths from Egypt. That's why this selection was selective I guess.

I have already replied to this "Anecdote & Fairy Tale."

You did not.

It's a shame that you lack the courage to take the challenge to understand the impact of the three Scientific Discoveries that I have mentioned! 

Again, can't take the challenge to elicit the views/theories of those who were the "first" to understand Individualism?

style_images/master/snapback.png

No, I think it is not worth my time to discuss anything with you.

Edited February 21, 2005 by Armen

[Stormig]

Siamanto,

 

So that I don't become emotional and juvenile let me state my points again:

 

1. Greeks got their first knowledge about mathematics from Egypt because, for example, the first known Greek mathematician was educated in Egypt. And this was a tremedous impulse for the development of maths in Greece.

 

2. Arabs had huge civilisational impact on Europe. One example is that they helped to introduce compass to Europe. And this is an established fact. It is in no way an anecdote or a fairy tale.

 

3. Individualism: I think our conversation about this will indeed be fruitless. So I'll stop here.

style_images/master/snapback.png

How about Arabic numerals? I'm damn glad we're not multiplying with Roman or Greek numbers. And I think it is the most obvious of impacts. It stands out and cannot be an anecdote.

[Nakharar]

Don't "Arabic" numerals originate from India?

[Sasun]

Don't "Arabic" numerals originate from India?

style_images/master/snapback.png

That is correct.

[Stormig]

Don't "Arabic" numerals originate from India?

style_images/master/snapback.png

I don't know, and, even if, given the time frame during which the numerals were introduced into Europe (well over a millenium ago), it should have been introduced by the Arabs due to closer proximity and access relative to India. That is beside the point anyway - it's like asking about whether "Swiss" chocolate owes the cocoa beans to Africa.

[Nakharar]

Which proves they were only a conduit.

[Armen]

Which proves they were only a conduit.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Why "only". If not for the conduit, how would the things move? It is a very important aspect. Why are you underestimating it?

[Armat]

The question is what went wrong. If Arabic culture was at one time pretty advanced in some areas then Europe’s why then ever since Arabs have been rotting in archaic mentality just about in every field. Edited February 21, 2005 by Armat

[Siamanto]

Armen,

It is noteworthy that as soon as you were asked to go one step beyond counting fairy tales, you started looking for the closest exit. You probably thought that it would be a "piece of cake" to convince your challengers! When things got "tough," you first started "distorting" what it was said and, when unsuccessful, looked for an exit!

 

Honestly, I seriously doubt that you have anything meaningful to say about the views/theories of those who you claim to be the "first" to have understood and contemplated Individualism. You kept on mentioning their "pioneering" and "unique" work, yet not a single idea, not a single line that would present their views/theories. Isn't that curious?

 

Honestly, based on your replies, I seriously doubt that you are capable of distinguishing Scientific Fundamental Discoveries from Technological Innovations. Even less capable of assessing their relevance in the History of Sciences. Yet you allow yourself - with ease and obstination - to insist on highly controversial statements.

 

Honestly, and sadly enough, you seem to lack the Intellectual Courage and Honesty to admit it!

 

Would you care to prove me wrong?

Edited February 21, 2005 by Siamanto

[Armen]

The question is what went wrong. If Arabic culture was at one time pretty advanced in some areas then Europe’s why then ever since Arabs have been rotting in archaic mentality just about in every field.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

That was not the question I was discussing. The question was weather there was a contribution and civilisational impact.

 

However the question you raise is interesting in its turn. I think it was the nature of Islamic thought which continuously tried to contol dissent in every sphere. Same like the Catholic Church did in Europe. However, in Europe Protestantism developed an equal forse and this struggle went not only between different countries but between communities and individuals. Not only phisical and emotional struggle but also struggle of thinking, which produced lot of innovative thinking and progress.

 

However, there is a crucial difference between Christianity's New Testament and Islam that gave a stronger impetus to dissent in Christian world. Taking into account how strong was the influence of religion on people's minds in those days, the idea of mersifull God found its way to the people's minds bypassing the Church interpretations. While Allah is its essence is a "punisher". There are more points in Bibile that set your mind free for personal findings.

 

There is a hypothesis that the development of dissent (although not formulated in these terms and categories) in Eurasia was prevented by the Mongol conquest. If you compare the development timeline, the Mongol (and I mean specifically the Mongols, not Turks or other nomads) conquest devastated a vast territory stretching from China to Bagdad and Damasq, Cilicia, the Black Sea. They were stopped somewhere between Poland and Hungary if I am not mistaked. But they didn't conquer those countries. Iran was devastated as well.

 

If you know the nature of a Mongol conquest (how is it different from other conquests) it is not difficult to see why did Eurasia stop its development for nearly 200 years. This gave a stratagic advantage to Europe and the West as a whole. The advantage of the first move (like in chess) when the world started to get globalised.

Edited February 21, 2005 by Armen

[Stormig]

Who cares why things went wrong? OK, that probably doesn't sound as I wanted it to come out, but in the great scheme of things, why does it matter? The Chinese were once the "Middle Kingdom" - then "something" happened. This, too, isn't going to sound as I intend it to - but "shit happens"...

[Armat]

Who cares why things went wrong? OK, that probably doesn't sound as I wanted it to come out, but in the great scheme of things, why does it matter? The Chinese were once the "Middle Kingdom" - then "something" happened. This, too, isn't going to sound as I intend it to - but "shit happens"...

style_images/master/snapback.png

Yes but why the shit mostly happens in Islamic countries.

 

Armen

I agree with you however I doubt Mongols were cause for these stagnations. At the present most Arabic countries are free of invaders but still think and act like there are in Middle Ages. I blame this mostly on Islam, which is inflexible of adapting new ideas. In Saudi Arabia woman are still not allowed to drive among many other archaic practices. I also think Islamic none figurative arts to be totally shallow and decorative.

[Armen]

Armen

I agree with you however I doubt Mongols were cause for these stagnations. At the present most Arabic countries are free of invaders but still think and act like there are in Middle Ages. I blame this mostly on Islam, which is inflexible of adapting new ideas. In Saudi Arabia woman are still not allowed to drive among many other archaic practices. I also think Islamic none figurative arts to be totally shallow and decorative.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Armat, I agree that Islam was a major factor that slowed down the development of these countries. However, this doesn't mean that there are no other factors that "helped" these countries not to develop. Political leaders in the West have always viewed this world as a chessboard of struggle for resources. And they have gond to all the extreems to prevent the development of many countries during the colonial period (orchestrated coups, assasinations, conquests and much more). It is exactly like in chess. If I am in an advatageous position it is hard for you to get out of it and my advantage will accelerate if there are other factors that influence you negatively (like Islam). But the advantage of the first move also has significant impact.

 

Saudi Arabia emerged as one of the centers of Arabic world only after Damascus and Baghdad where destroyed by the Mongols. Also, Cairo (the Mamluk empire) played a role of the Arab center for some centuries until it was colonised.

 

Here are some conclusion about the impact of Mongol invasion on Islamic world:

 

http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tut.../ilkhanate.html

 

The Mongol invasion of the Islamic heartland had mixed effects. On one hand, the Islamic world never regained its previous power. Much of the six centuries of Islamic scholarship, culture, and infrastructure was destroyed as the invaders burned libraries, replaced mosques with Buddhist temples, and destroyed intricate irrigation systems. In fact, the irrigation equipment necessary for farming in the Mesopotamian desert was not rebuilt until the 20th century. Additionally, Gaykhatu's attempt to introduce paper money at the end of the 13th century virtually destroyed trade in the region, from which it was difficult to recover.

 

On the other hand, the Mongol invasion was not entirely negative for the Islamic world. Perhaps the most significant achievement for the Muslims under Mongol rule was their ability to absorb the Mongols into their Islamic culture, rather than allowing its destruction at Mongol hands. This feat can be seen in the triumph of the Islamic faith over Mongol shamanism and Buddhism. It had occurred so quickly, in fact, that only 40 years after the fall of the Abbasid caliphate in 1258, the Mongols responsible for it had themselves adopted Islam as the official religion of their empire.

 

Civilisations does not develop instantly. For many centuries Arabs had accumulated sceince, culture, literature and traditions in Baghdad and Damascus. Once they were gone it was ver difficult to regain that power. Arab Khalifas like Haroun al-Rashid were already starting to introduce innovations and reforms to the Arab world. It was not standing that still. The primary reason baing that Baghdad and Damascus were not purely Arab (Kureishi). They were a mix of many ethnoses and cultures that had Mesopotamia as their center and therefore emerged as natural centers of the Khalifat. That's why their destruction was a major blow to the Arab world.

 

Immagine if London and Paris were completely destroyed sometime in 15th century and Britiain and France devastated. For exmple the Brits captured Paris during the "100 years' war", but did they destroy it? It was there even after the French counter attacked and retook it under Joanne d'Arc. Mongols were not like any other conqueror. Again, by this I am not saying that Islam was not (and is not) slowing them down. It is. But if not for the Mongols, Islam may well be very different. The last rulers of Baghdad and Damascus were very progressive. Actually, some part of the Arabs might well be Christians now if not for the Mongols. They gave Islam new power and introduced more rigid state control and utilization of religion like we later saw in the Ottoman empire.

Edited February 22, 2005 by Armen