How Does A Society Develop?

[Siamanto]

First of all, thank you for the references: at least, now there's something to talk about!

 

 

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.

style_images/master/snapback.png

That may be a very simplistic and superficial assessment! A "more developed" Military Philosophy/Technology is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition to successfully invade and conquer other lands. It makes it more likely, it only facilitates!

 

The following are some of the main reasons why Muslims succeeded in their conquests:

1- Islam succeeded in uniting the disparate nomadic tribes - in Arabia and Central Asia - and channeled all available forces towards a unique - sacred - goal. The Muslim Philosophy was based on the idea of conquest i.e. "aslim, taslam!"

Islam gave nomads an Identity, a Goal, a new life, a revival!

2- Europeans had internal issues and were in a decadent phase and had less motivation/drive to conquer. In fact, the Crusades proved that when motivated and united they could challenge the Muslims.

3- The open space - i.e. the Arabian deserts and Central Asian steppes - acted as "Highways" - interconnecting continents - that helped them in their initial conquests. Later, they were organized and mighty enough to go deeper into Europe, but they seldom conquered Highlands using military operations.

 

In other words, they managed to conquer because of the enemy's inability to be motivated enough to fight!

In other words, they excelled in terrain where developed military technology is less required.

 

Of course, I'm not saying that they had no Military or Administrative Genie. I'm saying: "let's not exaggerate!"

 

 

 

 

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

Those references, at best, indicate that some Muslim Individuals contributed to Science and Art. However, the question was about Muslims as a Collectivity : schools, trends etc. A Muslim Individual contributing to European Science, Art and Philosophy cannot represent the Muslim Collectivity.

Last, but not least, most of it seems to be anecdotal and unfounded. I've known Indians who claim to have discovered the same.

 

Most importantly, it does show how Muslims were "more developed" than Europeans!

 

The following is a short list of URLs covering European Medieval Arts & Sciences:

 

http://members.aol.com/McNelis/medsci_index.html#Math

 

http://witcombe.sbc.edu/ARTHmedieval.html

 

For a more exhaustive list:

 

http://www.hmml.org/20040210_Archive/resou.../medi_links.htm

[Siamanto]

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.

style_images/master/snapback.png

I remember and I'll have to agree with Anonymouse that

I think you are including too many things under one umbrella which makes it difficult to decipher,

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

But I will briefly comment on the following:

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.

style_images/master/snapback.png

It is true that the Renaissance was a revival and gave an impetus to both Arts and Sciences, but it is not true that "Arts and sciences did not have the chance to develop before rigid religious dogmata were effectively challenged."

In fact, many "enluminures" and Music of the "Dark Ages" seem to be more "contemporary" than Renaissance Art.

 

I'll try to find better sites. For now, check the following - I've seen much better ones, they seem to be poorly scanned:

http://www.bnf.fr/enluminures/manuscrits/aman1/i3_0001.htm

 

(Click on picture to enlarge it.)

 

Also, check the following site (you'll have to look around!)

http://witcombe.sbc.edu/ARTHmedieval.html#general

 

 

 

 

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.

style_images/master/snapback.png

Claims about Muslims - or others - having "invented" or "discovered" this or that is not new! It's never clear what is meant and is - for the most part - anecdotal. We've heard it many many times before!

 

In any case, asking for clarifications is the best way to understand someone, specially when the other person is from a different background!

I can't learn from "one-sentence statements." I can only learn from explanations.

[Siamanto]

Also,

Arabic or Muslim Architecture integrated many elements of ancient Persian and Assyrian Architecture.

I'll try to find links!

Edited February 17, 2005 by Siamanto

[Sasun]

I mean quite the contrary.  Did you really think I was a bigoted right-wing free marketeer worshipping Milton Friedman? Funnee!   

Well, such thoughts did not definitely cross my mind. I was only remotely trying to guess

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.

I can see your point and agree to a large extent.

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...

style_images/master/snapback.png

I did a brief search on the internet, and I am to conclude that this is the guy I am talking about. What I know is

a. in 1998 an Indian economist got a Nobel prize for his works on the subject of femine,

b. after about one year femine happened somewhere in Asia (possibly in India) which should not have happened according to his theory

 

I don't know much more than that. I just read an article about the second part in 1999, don't even remember where. It is possible that the theory is only partially wrong, and the article was exaggerating, or some such

Edited February 17, 2005 by Sasun

[Accelerated]

Most importantly, it does show how Muslims were "more developed" than Europeans!

 

 

Siamanto, looks like I wont be able to prove anything to you short of lending you my time-machine, here, take a puff....

 

As for the military: pound for pound the asiatic/turkic horse archer was unstoppable untill the wider circulation of gunpowder ie. about the time the Turks were turned back in the Balkans.

 

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.

 

that may be, but as far as I know by the time of the Crusades allready the Church had very much become a pillar of the State or rather a means of keeping the commoners passive and obedient to their earthly masters. And yet it was after this period that Europe began to to assert its power.

[Anonymouse]

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!

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

First of all, the only thing you overlook is that it is democracy that naturally evolves into tyranny. Reading Plato's Republic one gets a vivid picture of how a democracy leads to tyranny and in fact we can even see an accurate portrait of Weimar Germany going down the path of totalitarianism. I suggest you read my thoughts on democracy before trying to assume what I think about democracy.

 

http://hyeforum.com/index.php?showtopic=8440

 

I would further disagree with Churchill and yourself that somehow democracy is the "least worst" of governments. In fact, because the the unthinking mob evolves into tyranny, it is the worst form of government, I would personally say. But even if we were to assume your point, being least worst makes it no more just or valid than the one preceding it. Socrates was condemned because he argued for monarchy in a sense, over the democracy of the mob. You cannot deny that Socrates and Jesus were victims of popular will. I am not interested nor am I mentioning the illusory and semantic differences between what is supposedly a "pure" democracy, or a "liberal democracy". Semantics is the last resort of those who cannot stand to scrutiny and must resort to word play as opposed to the kernel of its thought and theory. It is akin to those neo-Communists who defend Communism by trying to appeal to world play such as "Stalinism was not Communism" or "Leninism was not Communism". Democracy is degeneration in that it protects and supports the vilest among us and helps them rise to power, it protects the weakest and unfittest, and argues for an otherwise unnatural illusion, "equality". Moreover, the conflict in all civilizations and their rise and fall is not in the silly and arrogant notions of democracy, "Oh look at us aren't we so sophisticated? We have a liberal democracy! This allows us to sneer at anything else other than a liberal democracy because that is the way we democrats are". No. The conflict, when we speak of the development of a civilization, and its decay and fall, is the conflict between the collective and the individual and at different points in a civilization one will occupy the stage as the "correct" thing. The fact that liberal democracies are not liberal at all is because as we speak in "liberal democracies" individuals cannot exercise their individual powers as humans. For example in Europe there are 'hate crime laws' that stifle criticism of the Holocaust, and individuals can be fined, imprisoned and exiled. Talk of race and racial inequalities is as well proscribed.

[Solaris]

It is true that the Renaissance was a revival and gave an impetus to both Arts and Sciences, but it is not true that "Arts and sciences did not have the chance to develop before rigid religious dogmata were effectively challenged."

In fact, many "enluminures" and Music of the "Dark Ages" seem to be more "contemporary" than Renaissance Art.

 

I'll try to find better sites. For now, check the following - I've seen much better ones, they seem to be poorly scanned:

http://www.bnf.fr/enluminures/manuscrits/aman1/i3_0001.htm

 

Also, check the following site (you'll have to look around!)

http://witcombe.sbc.edu/ARTHmedieval.html#general

 

This is no doubt very interesting, but in fact I didn't mean to say that there were no arts or sciences before the Renaissance. There indeed existed a thick layer of culture on which Renaissance was essentially based – I'd even say wouldn't be possible without it. But with a few exceptions, the "dark ages" culture lacked the true greatness of the Classical and Renaissance art, at least in my perception of greatness. I pretty much agree with good ole Einstein that "everything that is really great and inspiring is created by the individual who can labor in freedom".

 

Claims about Muslims - or others - having "invented" or "discovered" this or that is not new! It's never clear what is meant and is - for the most part - anecdotal. We've heard it many many times before!

 

Any "claims" coming from so long ago would be anecdotal. Patent law and intellectual property rights were unknown back then!

Edited February 17, 2005 by Solaris

[Solaris]

I did a brief search on the internet, and I am to conclude that this is the guy I am talking about. What I know is

a. in 1998 an Indian economist got a Nobel prize for his works on the subject of femine,

b. after about one year femine happened somewhere in Asia (possibly in India) which should not have happened according to his theory

 

I don't know much more than that. I just read an article about the second part in 1999, don't even remember where. It is possible that the theory is only partially wrong, and the article was exaggerating, or some such

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

That's him. He's the guy. I don't know the details either, but it seems that the double irony should be in the following. Firstly, Sen's famine theory is way more complex, but is largely known by his famous statement that " in the terrible history of famines in the world, no substantial famine has ever occurred in any independent and democratic country with a relatively free press”. It strikes me as overly presuming at the least – it is true that democratic institutions make massive coordination failures less likely, but they are not a guarantee against them. Secondly, in my opinion, none of those East Asian countries is truly democratic – while they may have formal institutions right, informal traditional institutions (such as castes in India) may effectively hamper the effectiveness of formal institutions. So a famine occuring in a phoney democracy like that would immedialy expose Sen's theory to media sharks... oops sorry to the criticisms of the "relatively free press"

[Solaris]

First of all, the only thing you overlook is that it is democracy that naturally evolves into tyranny. Reading Plato's Republic one gets a vivid picture of how a democracy leads to tyranny and in fact we can even see an accurate portrait of Weimar Germany going down the path of totalitarianism. I suggest you read my thoughts on democracy before trying to assume what I think about democracy.

 

http://hyeforum.com/index.php?showtopic=8440

 

I would further disagree with Churchill and yourself that somehow democracy is the "least worst" of governments. In fact, because the the unthinking mob evolves into tyranny, it is the worst form of government, I would personally say. But even if we were to assume your point, being least worst makes it no more just or valid than the  one preceding it. Socrates was condemned because he argued for monarchy in a sense, over the democracy of the mob. You cannot deny that Socrates and Jesus were victims of popular will. I am not interested nor am I mentioning the illusory and semantic differences between what is supposedly a "pure" democracy, or a "liberal democracy". Semantics is the last resort of those who cannot stand to scrutiny and must resort to word play as opposed to the kernel of its thought and theory. It is akin to those neo-Communists who defend Communism by trying to appeal to world play such as "Stalinism was not Communism" or "Leninism was not Communism". Democracy is degeneration in that it protects and supports the vilest among us and helps them rise to power, it protects the weakest and unfittest, and argues for an otherwise unnatural illusion, "equality". Moreover, the conflict in all civilizations and their rise and fall is not in the silly and arrogant notions of democracy, "Oh look at us aren't we so sophisticated? We have a liberal democracy! This allows us to sneer at anything else other than a liberal democracy because that is the way we democrats are". No. The conflict, when we speak of the development of a civilization, and its decay and fall, is the conflict between the collective and the individual and at different points in a civilization one will occupy the stage as the "correct" thing. The fact that liberal democracies are not liberal at all is because as we speak in "liberal democracies" individuals cannot exercise their individual powers as humans. For example in Europe there are 'hate crime laws' that stifle criticism of the Holocaust, and individuals can be fined, imprisoned and exiled. Talk of race and racial inequalities is as well proscribed.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Oh Mouse, you're at it again! Give yourself a break!

Now let's leave aside what I think about your standard set of right-wing anarchist propositions, so I won't bore you with arguments about institutions designed to "protect the democracy from itself". I see that this has already been discussed here a while ago, and some of Sasun's comments in that discussion you referred to(notably post #19) pretty much coincide with my own opinion.

Just plain tell what is your alternative to liberal democracy!

[Armen]

Anonymouse, the roots of individualism can been traced further back to Egypt. Greece got its initial metaphisical knowledge though interaction with Egyptian clergy (the guards of labirinth in symbolic literature). Sometimes the initial idea of individualism is called Hermetism. In ancient Greece Hermes was the God/symbol of trade and secrets (sealed/hermetical thoughts). The development of modern individualism started from Egypt. The British who had knowledge about this, practically transported everything about this they found (even huge stone statues) in Egypt to Britain. Actually, Egypt attracted the Brits like a magnet. The knowledge about individualism that the Egyptians had helped them to control many nations.

[Anonymouse]

Anonymouse, the roots of individualism can been traced further back to Egypt. Greece got its initial metaphisical knowledge though interaction with Egyptian clergy (the guards of labirinth in symbolic literature). Sometimes the initial idea of individualism is called Hermetism. In ancient Greece Hermes was the God/symbol of trade and secrets (sealed/hermetical thoughts). The development of modern individualism started from Egypt. The British who had knowledge about this, practically transported everything about this they found (even huge stone statues) in Egypt to Britain. Actually, Egypt attracted the Brits like a magnet. The knowledge about individualism that the Egyptians had helped them to control many nations.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

You most likely missed my point and Egypt has nothing to do with Western society.

Edited February 19, 2005 by Anonymouse

[Armine]

<>

 

Neccessity, Ability, and Power are three words that allow us to better understand the origin and development of society. Initially, people needed to form what we call tribes for the sake of survival. As these tribes grew in size and became more complex they had to form a system. Those who had the ability to lead took their place and the rest followed; its crucial to mention that there existed gray lines where some did not want to naturally follow hence those who had more power took the proper actions to ensure their survival. From here on it was survival of the fitest as numerous tribes formed. Those with more ablility and power to survive took over other tribes and most probably killed the leaders if they did not succomb to their rule, and slowly bigger tribes formed. When tribes became to large and remained in one area instead of moving, societies began to form. Those who had the abilities to form bigger civiliztions did so and they gradually developed complex systems. Identity is also key in the development of societies becuase it is a catalyist to the given society's existence. The deveopment of language and culture are cruical to this process as well. Lastly, geography is also very important because even if a tribe was powerful and well developed a natural phenomena could easily lead to its demise and even to its fall.

 

In order to illustrate my point I'll briefly write of the Ottomans. Before the formaton of the Ottoman Empire there existed many civilizations in the Middle East. Many nomadic groups began to enter the Middle East from Central Asia. One of these tribes was lead by Osman, as his people gained power, land, and gave up their nomadic identity they formed a civilization as they destroyed others. Needless to say these are the people we know as the Ottoman in a very brief explanation of their history. My point is they came to the Middle East becase they needed to, for food, new land, new reasourses, but as they discovered they can stay in the area and survive and floursih they decided to take that route. They expanded the empire by the use of ghaza tactis, meaning raids onto the 'infedels." They killed many of the existing peoples, but at the same time they kept many who did not resist and incorporated them into this new society. for example as Mehmed the Conqueror took over constantinople he brought in many Christians and Jews to repopulate the area; this was done forceably and voluntarily. The reason why he did this was to attract more people to his empire and this was done by giveing the existing non-muslim groups the abliilty to form their own communities and have their own leaders; this is a tactic used to buil civilization. They expanded so much that they reached north africa and europe. They were able to utilize power and by doing so were able to govern for 600 years; the longest existing empire. The power structures they developed became very important to their survial. There is much more to this story and many more aspects that allowed the Ottomas to prosper. In Conclusion, this small nomadic tribe formed into the longes lasting and most vast empire known to history. This was all due to the way they utilized their abilities.

 

It is cruicial to note that Armenians played a significant role in the development of the Ottoman empire on political, cultural, and economic levels. Unfortuneatly the fall of the Ottomans was a disaster for us.

 

Hopefully this helps. Sorry if it is boring or extensive, I do not mean to torture anyone. I know the concepts are very basic but the only way one can build knowledge is by knowing the basics.

[Armen]

The development of individualism started long before Christianity. Individualism deals with human instincts and their expression/emotions. Old testament has more to do with individualism than the New Testament (the base of Chrisitan thought), which deals with the freedom of spirit.

 

Egypt has something to do with Western world. To the dergee that its Egyptian monks influenced Plato and Aristotel.

[Siamanto]

Siamanto, looks like I wont be able to prove anything to you short of lending you my time-machine, here, take a puff.... 

style_images/master/snapback.png

No, you won't be able to prove much with anecdotes! Sorry!

As for your time-machine, is it the model that Abdul El Hamadi engineered in 1029 AC? I've heard they are miraculous!

How about Magic? Did you consider it?

 

Honestly, your reply amazes me! Either

1- You believe in the magical powers of your arguments that should have necessarily convinced me

2- I'm a total moron who would fall for any anecdotal "evidence"

3- You fail to see the highly controversial nature of your statement that Muslims were more developed than Europeans.

 

 

 

 

As for the military: pound for pound the asiatic/turkic horse archer was unstoppable untill the wider circulation of gunpowder ie. about the time the Turks were turned back in the Balkans.

style_images/master/snapback.png

I believe that I've already replied to the above. Let's please avoid circular discussions. Thanks!

 

 

 

 

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.

that may be, but as far as I know by the time of the Crusades allready the Church had very much become a pillar of the State or rather a means of keeping the commoners passive and obedient to their earthly masters. And yet it was after this period that Europe began to to assert its power.

style_images/master/snapback.png

Did I say that?

[Siamanto]

It is true that the Renaissance was a revival and gave an impetus to both Arts and Sciences, but it is not true that "Arts and sciences did not have the chance to develop before rigid religious dogmata were effectively challenged."

In fact, many "enluminures" and Music of the "Dark Ages" seem to be more "contemporary" than Renaissance Art.

style_images/master/snapback.png

There indeed existed a thick layer of culture on which Renaissance was essentially based – I'd even say wouldn't be possible without it. But with a few exceptions, the "dark ages" culture lacked the true greatness of the Classical and Renaissance art, at least in my perception of greatness.

style_images/master/snapback.png

No comments!

 

 

 

Any "claims" coming from so long ago would be anecdotal. Patent law and intellectual property rights were unknown back then! 

style_images/master/snapback.png

Maybe "patent law and intellectual property rights were unknown," but the "Magic" of documenting and building artifacts that would survive time and testify was already known!

Edited February 19, 2005 by Siamanto

[Siamanto]

Anonymouse, the roots of individualism can been traced further back to Egypt....The development of modern individualism started from Egypt.

style_images/master/snapback.png

Is it really possible to locate the "sole" "roots" of Individualism? Is it possible that the idea has been developed "simultaneously" and/or independently in different cultures?

 

 

 

The British who had knowledge about this, practically transported everything about this they found (even huge stone statues) in Egypt to Britain. Actually, Egypt attracted the Brits like a magnet. The knowledge about individualism that the Egyptians had helped them to control many nations.

style_images/master/snapback.png

Egypt is not the only country the British - or some Europeans countries - have looted! Does that indicate an interest in - or an attraction to - the victim?

 

 

 

 

The knowledge about individualism that the Egyptians had helped them to control many nations.

style_images/master/snapback.png

Interesting! Would you care to elaborate? Thanks!

 

 

 

Egypt has something to do with Western world. To the dergee that its Egyptian monks influenced Plato and Aristotel.

style_images/master/snapback.png

Do we have written records?

For some reason, it reminds me of the "proven" "fact" that Jesus has studied - was influenced by - Indian Philosophy/Religion!

Edited February 19, 2005 by Siamanto

[Stormig]

Also,

Arabic or Muslim Architecture integrated many elements of ancient Persian and Assyrian Architecture.

style_images/master/snapback.png

How criminal. When will barbarians learn to leave others' property alone?

[Stormig]

First of all, thank you for the references: at least, now there's something to talk about!

That may be a very simplistic and superficial assessment! A "more developed" Military Philosophy/Technology is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition to successfully invade and conquer other lands. It makes it more likely, it only facilitates!

 

The following are some of the main reasons why Muslims succeeded in their conquests:

1- Islam succeeded in uniting the disparate nomadic tribes - in Arabia and Central Asia - and channeled all available forces towards a unique - sacred - goal. The Muslim Philosophy was based on the idea of conquest i.e. "aslim, taslam!"

Islam gave nomads an Identity, a Goal, a new life, a revival!

2- Europeans had internal issues and were in a decadent phase and had less motivation/drive to conquer. In fact, the Crusades proved that when motivated and united they could challenge the Muslims.

3- The open space - i.e. the Arabian deserts and Central Asian steppes - acted as "Highways" - interconnecting continents - that helped them in their initial conquests. Later, they were organized and mighty enough to go deeper into Europe, but they seldom conquered Highlands using military operations.

 

In other words, they managed to conquer because of the enemy's inability to be motivated enough to fight!

In other words, they excelled in terrain where developed military technology is less required.

 

Of course, I'm not saying that they had no Military or Administrative Genie. I'm saying:  "let's not exaggerate!"

Those references, at best, indicate that some Muslim Individuals contributed to Science and Art. However, the question was about Muslims as a Collectivity : schools, trends etc. A Muslim Individual contributing to European Science, Art and Philosophy cannot represent the Muslim Collectivity.

Last, but not least, most of it seems to be anecdotal and unfounded. I've known Indians who claim to have discovered the same.

 

Most importantly, it does show how Muslims were "more developed" than Europeans!

 

The following is a short list of URLs covering European Medieval Arts & Sciences:

 

http://members.aol.com/McNelis/medsci_index.html#Math

 

http://witcombe.sbc.edu/ARTHmedieval.html

 

For a more exhaustive list:

 

http://www.hmml.org/20040210_Archive/resou.../medi_links.htm

style_images/master/snapback.png

And exactly what does any of that say about achievements by Muslims?

[Stormig]

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.

style_images/master/snapback.png

I think that the only humans that lived in harmony with nature should have been those who neither used tools nor knew how to light a fire. True, many tribes, in comparison with most of us today, have been kinder to their environment, but that is not an absolute and moreover it is only a matter of time before someone makes a discovery and things evolve. There's nothing "unnatural" about the way humans have fared so far, and it starts as far back as the discovery of agriculture, therefore is hardly recent.

As for the people living in the North, I remember reading a quote from a Christian priest who described the pagan Vikings as into plundering in the summer and engaging in procreation in winter, when they had nothing better to do. Sounds happy to me.

[Siamanto]

Also,

Arabic or Muslim Architecture integrated many elements of ancient Persian and Assyrian Architecture.

I'll try to find links!

style_images/master/snapback.png

How criminal. When will barbarians learn to leave others' property alone?

style_images/master/snapback.png

Your next Armenian lesson: "Kogh sird@ togh!"

 

Integrating elements of another Culture into one's own is a universal phenomena: some do it in an ethical manner others prefer dishonesty. In both cases, the credit should go to the original!

You should have in mind what your Nation has done for centuries: stealing and appropriating other Cultures and destroying and/or stealing the artifacts created by those Cultures. Briefly said, stealing their Identity!

Don't feel so unfortunate, after all you *urks were far "more developed" than any other Nation in the art of destruction and looting.

 

 

 

 

And exactly what does any of that say about achievements by Muslims?

style_images/master/snapback.png

How many *urks does it take to figure out that a comparison - "A more developed than B" - involves two distinct entities i.e. has two operands? Apparently, more than one!

What happened to all the "inverses, converses" and all that "charmingly" subversive "Logic?" that you have so proudly displayed, only two weeks ago?

Yes! You have googled that day to show us how conversed you are in Logic; but, could not tell that what you've found belonged to the Middle Ages! (How appropriate to our conversation! ) Later, you have reversed back to your own flavor of naive provincialism!

 

 

 

Note: I have chosen to auto censor the word "*urk" because it is commonly perceived as unpleasant and offending, with immoral and evil connotations!

[Armen]

Is it really possible to locate the "sole" "roots" of Individualism? Is it possible that the idea has been developed "simultaneously" and/or independently in different cultures?

 

Siamanto, if you compare the known civiliasations in retrospectively you will come to the point where you will be left with very few to deal with, where individualism was a matter of discussion. And by this I mean, that people of that time were consciously speaking about it. Meaning, they were consciously searching for a human beings place in this wordl and how his Ego is dealing with its surroundings. If you trace the line back you will see that the 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. Although the Arabs familiar with the works of ancient Greek philosophers (particularly the elite and scientists), the nature of Islam prevented the development of social knowledge about this.

 

You don't find conscious assesment of individual's role in society neither in Chinese, or Indian nor any other civilisation of that time. Even if there was this kind of knowledge in ancient India or China it was kept among the monks. Same goes for Egypt. But it was the Egyptian knowledge that influenced the Greeks. Greeks and very close ties with Egypt. Many went there to study.

 

The Libarary of Alexandria was the center of knowledge later when Egypt became Hellenised. The influenced each other. But I think Egyptians were much advansed when Greeks got into contact with them. Consider that until now it is not known how the massive stones of the pyramids where uplifted.

 

This may help.

 

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

 

Egypt is not the only country the British - or some Europeans countries - have looted! Does that indicate an interest in - or an attraction to - the victim?

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

They were attracked to all their victims but to evey victim in a certain way. This is a theme for a very long discussion.

[Siamanto]

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

Edited February 20, 2005 by Siamanto

[Stormig]

Siamanto, I asked you what a bunch of links about Medieval Europe says about Muslim achievements which you scrutinise. And I mean achievements in the absolute sense and relevance. I didn't ask for a comparison of who was more developed than the other during what time frame or what you thought about me for not making a comparison, nor did I participate in making any comparisons to stroke anyone’s feelings of security, you super-duper-megalo-loser. Shove that goody two-bit ego where the sun don’t shine.

 

Why “compare”? No-one around here comes comparing their achievements with yours, do they? Some of you losers out there have chips on your shoulders with the Arabs because of the religion they fostered. Boo f-ing hoo. You wouldn't extend yourselves half the length if it had been the Chinese, Indians, Aztecs, or Incas being discussed instead. Or Greeks vs. non-Hellenic Europeans in some year B.C.

What kind of BS is asking about Muslim individuals vs. collectivity in science? They weren't the products or students of the European education systems back then, bringing home knowledge, or stranded on islands. Leonardo da Vinci stands a greater chance of being a solo genius contributor to science to the extent that he did in his locality, certainly more so than scores of Arab and non-Arab Muslim scientists in touch with each other and within a generation or two of each other. No-one questions if he really did think up the prototype for the helicopter. Yet the matter of who made contributions to algebra and why Europeans themselves named it after an Arab is being held under a magnifying glass. But that is exactly what happened. Can’t live with the thoughts, can ya?

But, if you really wanna know my take, it is simply that it is telling enough given that quote above about Muslims laughing at Crusader medical practices, which in Amin Malouf’s book, “The Crusades Through Arab Eyes,” continues with an account of how Crusaders would chip the sign of the cross on the skull of a patient and not wonder why they died. All this while Arabs were familiar with the teachings of Socrates, Aristoteles, Plato – they even adapted Plato’s name to their language and called him Aflatoon – while Europeans had to “re-discover” them another two centuries later down the road.

Muslims were advanced once, now the West is. So what? What is so utterly inconceivable about that? Don’t be afraid, you won’t drop dead if you let go of your knee-jerks some.

 

Finally, I am not aware of what ethical crime the Arabs committed in borrowing from other forms of architecture. Arabs and Muslims by far do not have the incentive to deface other nations’ names off of monuments, because ethnicity is a non-issue and not a threat – in principle and during periods of affluence.

 

Siamanto, I'll say this much - and I doubt it'll be a revelation to anyone - you're full of yourself. Deflate. Then maybe you'll hazard the possibility of not sounding like a hick.

[Nakharar]

Finally, I am not aware of what ethical crime the Arabs committed in borrowing from other forms of architecture. Arabs and Muslims by far do not have the incentive to deface other nations’ names off of monuments, because ethnicity is a non-issue and not a threat – in principle and during periods of affluence.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

That is because they do not have any minorities left. Or at best they are the status of the dhimmi. Arab culture is an amalgamation of Byzantine statescraft, Persian architecture and anicient Greek scholarship. 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.

[Siamanto]

Siamanto, I asked you what a bunch of links about Medieval Europe says about Muslim achievements which you scrutinise.

....

Why “compare”? No-one around here comes comparing their achievements with yours, do they? Some of you losers out there have chips on your shoulders with the Arabs because of the religion they fostered. Boo f-ing hoo.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

You're even far less perceptive - to use a euphemism - than I thought! I'll draw a picture, just for you!

 

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

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

...

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

First of all, thank you for the references: at least, now there's something to talk about!

...

Those references, at best, indicate that some Muslim Individuals contributed to Science and Art. However, the question was about Muslims as a Collectivity : schools, trends etc. A Muslim Individual contributing to European Science, Art and Philosophy cannot represent the Muslim Collectivity.

Last, but not least, most of it seems to be anecdotal and unfounded. I've known Indians who claim to have discovered the same.

 

Most importantly, it does show how Muslims were "more developed" than Europeans!

 

The following is a short list of URLs covering European Medieval Arts & Sciences:

 

http://members.aol.com/McNelis/medsci_index.html#Math

 

http://witcombe.sbc.edu/ARTHmedieval.html

 

For a more exhaustive list:

 

http://www.hmml.org/20040210_Archive/resou.../medi_links.htm

And exactly what does any of that say about achievements by Muslims?

style_images/master/snapback.png

style_images/master/snapback.png

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

style_images/master/snapback.png

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

I hope the picture helped! Don't worry we all have our handicaps!

 

 

 

 

 

What kind of BS is asking about Muslim individuals vs. collectivity in science? They weren't the products or students of the European education systems back then, bringing home knowledge, or stranded on islands. Leonardo da Vinci stands a greater chance of being a solo genius contributor to science to the extent that he did in his locality, certainly more so than scores of Arab and non-Arab Muslim scientists in touch with each other and within a generation or two of each other. No-one questions if he really did think up the prototype for the helicopter. Yet the matter of who made contributions to algebra and why Europeans themselves named it after an Arab is being held under a magnifying glass. But that is exactly what happened. Can’t live with the thoughts, can ya?

But, if you really wanna know my take, it is simply that it is telling enough given that quote above about Muslims laughing at Crusader medical practices, which in Amin Malouf’s book, “The Crusades Through Arab Eyes,” continues with an account of how Crusaders would chip the sign of the cross on the skull of a patient and not wonder why they died. All this while Arabs were familiar with the teachings of Socrates, Aristoteles, Plato – they even adapted Plato’s name to their language and called him Aflatoon – while Europeans had to “re-discover” them another two centuries later down the road.

Muslims were advanced once, now the West is. So what? What is so utterly inconceivable about that? Don’t be afraid, you won’t drop dead if you let go of your knee-jerks some.

style_images/master/snapback.png

Thank you for posting Chapter 4 of "Anecdotes & Fairy Tales." I enjoyed reading it!

 

 

 

 

 

Finally, I am not aware of what ethical crime the Arabs committed in borrowing from other forms of architecture. Arabs and Muslims by far do not have the incentive to deface other nations’ names off of monuments, because ethnicity is a non-issue and not a threat – in principle and during periods of affluence.

style_images/master/snapback.png

As perceptive as ever!

Let me repeat myself:

Your next Armenian lesson: "Kogh sird@ togh!"

Integrating elements of another Culture into one's own is a universal phenomena: some do it in an ethical manner others prefer dishonesty. In both cases, the credit should go to the original!

You should have in mind what your Nation has done for centuries: stealing and appropriating other Cultures and destroying and/or stealing the artifacts created by those Cultures. Briefly said, stealing their Identity!

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

 

 

 

 

Siamanto, I'll say this much - and I doubt it'll be a revelation to anyone - you're full of yourself. Deflate. Then maybe you'll hazard the possibility of not sounding like a hick.

style_images/master/snapback.png

Thank you for the advice and the words of wisdom!

Tomorrow is a holiday, I'll shop for a barometer - or an instrument to check pressure - and deflate as necessary!

Edited February 20, 2005 by Siamanto