08-26-2008, 08:47 PM
Jona, you say on your website that the Chaldaeans, who are infamous in mainstream Classics and History as the first and greatest purveyors of charlatanism and superstition, were the first scientists in history? And that the Greek science was actually learned from them? Again, those are some very striking and controversial statements, far out of the mainstream; they cannot be taken as an established fact until other scholars have their go at them, and either change their opinions or demonstrate the error in yours. But it certainly shouldn't be stated plainly and uncontroversially, as if there was nothing shocking in them. I certainly didn't expect www.livius.org to contain such controversial material.
In addition to all that, the Library of Alexandria had very little to do with astronomy (or astrology which was the province of the Chaldaeans). Its main emphasis was in mathematics, in applied engineering, in zoology and botanology (along with the literary criticism).
When I spoke of Greek exceptionalism, you brought up Holland. I'm not sure what you were referring to, but my conclusions were arrived at first-hand. What did he have to do with it?
But anyway, we're straying a bit from the original topic of the Olympics. I think that every reasonable person will accept that the Greeks were not the first practitioners of physical exercise; but you latch on to this fact to immediately ipso facto state that all of our connotations with athletics stem from it. This is contrary to the facts. Our views towards athletics stem from the Greeks. These views were dead in the West during the Middle Ages, and were only revived in the Renaissance by people deeply versed in the Greek and Roman Classics. No other society in the world produced such an intense admiration for the human body, yes not even the Babylonians; and as a result any connection between Gilgamesh and our Olympics is tangential at best. Just as, any connection between Aristotle's science and the origins of his language is coincidental at best -- and for all intents and purposes meaningless.
The fact of the matter is that many tribal/pre-civilized societies had groups of elders, chiefs, etc. That is a fact stemming from their lack of strong social/national forces, not from libertarian/republican ideals. Every society by inertia begins with some tribal elements, and then ossifies into a centralized monarchy. Europeans in the middle ages had very fractured nations, with fiefdoms, little petty kingdoms, a King which had power over nothing, a necessary council with his leading Nobles, etc. The German Empire even had electors choosing an emperor. But no sensitive observer would say that the Holy Roman Empire was a source of ideals and a bastion of liberty. Anyhow, we're straying from our thread again.
In addition to all that, the Library of Alexandria had very little to do with astronomy (or astrology which was the province of the Chaldaeans). Its main emphasis was in mathematics, in applied engineering, in zoology and botanology (along with the literary criticism).
When I spoke of Greek exceptionalism, you brought up Holland. I'm not sure what you were referring to, but my conclusions were arrived at first-hand. What did he have to do with it?
But anyway, we're straying a bit from the original topic of the Olympics. I think that every reasonable person will accept that the Greeks were not the first practitioners of physical exercise; but you latch on to this fact to immediately ipso facto state that all of our connotations with athletics stem from it. This is contrary to the facts. Our views towards athletics stem from the Greeks. These views were dead in the West during the Middle Ages, and were only revived in the Renaissance by people deeply versed in the Greek and Roman Classics. No other society in the world produced such an intense admiration for the human body, yes not even the Babylonians; and as a result any connection between Gilgamesh and our Olympics is tangential at best. Just as, any connection between Aristotle's science and the origins of his language is coincidental at best -- and for all intents and purposes meaningless.
Quote:Signifer, do you know that as far as we can tell, some form of democracy was not uncommon in the earlies days of civilization? At least, we see little evidence of a wealthy and privileged class from many early sites. There are hints of this in later sources; for example, the Gilgamesh legend has a senate and a popular assembly, even if King Gilgamesh dominates them. Government in many tribal societies, such as the eighteenth-century Iroquois or various Germanic peoples, has democratic elements.I think what you mean to say is that the Germanics and the Iroquois had tribal elements. These certainly were not conscious political institutions, explicitly deliberated and chosen into law.
The fact of the matter is that many tribal/pre-civilized societies had groups of elders, chiefs, etc. That is a fact stemming from their lack of strong social/national forces, not from libertarian/republican ideals. Every society by inertia begins with some tribal elements, and then ossifies into a centralized monarchy. Europeans in the middle ages had very fractured nations, with fiefdoms, little petty kingdoms, a King which had power over nothing, a necessary council with his leading Nobles, etc. The German Empire even had electors choosing an emperor. But no sensitive observer would say that the Holy Roman Empire was a source of ideals and a bastion of liberty. Anyhow, we're straying from our thread again.
Multi viri et feminae philosophiam antiquam conservant.
James S.
James S.
