Login

Goffredo · 06-24-2002, 02:03 PM

Hi everyone. 
 
I am reading the italian translation of 
CARNAGE AND CULTURE by Victor Davis Hanson (2001). 
I am about 2/3rd the way thru. 
It discusses various exemplary battles in "history" including the ancient battles of Salamis, Gaugamela and Cannae. 
I have mixed feelings about the book and might say more about it later once I finish and if anyone else has read it. 
 
The general thesis, as I understand it, is: over the past 2700 years in western culture there has been a cultural continuity (sometimes evident, sometimes thin, but never cut) with the attitude that the "free-men" of the Greek city-states had towards war and politics [hence religion and philosphy], an attitude that always given western societies the advantage in militarily confrontations with other cultures but also devastating effects when we fight ourselves (all-out total war). 
 
That philosphy and hence science are social by-products of how the greeks decided to settle their military affairs is the focus of my intimate thoughts now. I have come to think that science is a western creation that arose in a particular type of society, the same greek one (!); science is an accident of history and not a human innate attitude towards the world, just like "democracies", made of civil and "free" soldiers that react and act against "real" and "understandable" enemies, hence of men that move and act in a "real" world and not passive puppets in a magical one, are not innate and not universal in human societies. Such free men want to understand to be able to manipulate better others, things...; the sharper of such men then ask themselves what "real" means, and that is how philosphy begins. Philosophy and science can begin and then prosper only in a society were there is freedom to speak out and critisize and where one must "prove" his point with an "argument" that must be "convincing". What characterizes a good argument, a "proof", is the essence of logic (Aristotle). Modern mathematics (Euclid) follows. Fame and status are not enough to be convincing. Simply because the King says something doesn't make it right! The soldiers of such a society are free to go to battle, decide to do so, are not coerced, find a rational mechanism to fight efficiently, and then better, always looking for ways to contribute and exploit ideas or drop bad ones. Of course there is the tragic side of all this: men are very irrational and want to believe things, anything, just as long as charismatic leaders or priests tell them they will be saved. Only our rational society has succeeded in convincing millions of young men to let themselves be butchered on horrible battle fields. No logic, no mathematics, just ideologies. This instinct towards wanting to herd in groups is evidence that science, philosophy and democracy are not instinctive and natural human expressions. 
 
I am anxious to read the reactions to this book here in Europe. It will probably be attacked. 
 
But it is not a perfect book. In particular the Cannae chapter is the one I liked less (maybe because it the one "I think" I already know more about). And thruout the chapters, and even in any one, he repeats himself too much, almost like a drum beat, but maybe this is a rhetorical artifact. 
 
 
Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/ugoffredo.showPublicProfile?language=EN>goffredo</A> at: 6/24/02 5:05:19 pm

***Praefectusclassis*** · 06-24-2002, 02:28 PM

Sounds like an interesting book. The bit about western culture and the decisive battle is becoming quite the recurring theme in his work. See his i.e. The Western Way of War (1989) and The Wars of the Ancient Greeks (1999) Greets 
 
Jasper

Richomeres · 06-24-2002, 04:07 PM

Sounds very interesting. However, I do not think that the west or the Greeks invented science. Maybe the just put a new label on it. Other parents also had clever children. Look at Sumer, the the South American cultures, China, Egypt or the Indian sub-continent just to name some... 
 
I think a basic attribute of man is curiosity. Therefore people are looking for answers to their questions. Some of them turn to religion for these answers, others try to find them in a scientific approach. However the line between this two points of view may blur sometimes. 
 
Thanks for starting a very interesting thread. I think this will be move to "Off topic" before long. 
 
Helge

Goffredo · 06-24-2002, 04:33 PM

Yes I think we will end up having a long and interesting debate in off-topic. Hanson's book does not address the issue of science explicitely. It is a favorite of mine. 
I do believe that science IS a western creation because 
what makes science is not technological inventions and curiosity. Those are indeed common to man. 
What makes western science is the mechanism by which an argument is accepted as good. Fundamental is that arguments be explicit so that anyone with brains can sit down and look for mistakes. In Euclid (actually mathematics but the analogy is a strong one) anyone that can read can, with patience, follow the reasoning and accept the consequences. There is no magic, no priesthood, no initiation rites, no secrets, no mysterious forces of nature controlled by enpowed few. I am convinced this is peculiar to western culture but not at all obvious as the forces of darkness are always at work. Is is not easy to turn the light switch on (let there be light) and someone is always trying to turn it off again so that he can move the furniture around and then elect himself to guide everyone else, the blind, around. Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/ugoffredo.showPublicProfile?language=EN>goffredo</A> at: 6/25/02 8:06:25 am

StrategyM · 06-25-2002, 07:18 AM

The major problem I've heard raised about the book is that he completely ignores China. Very odd, given that this is the most enduring empire in history, and that the scientists of China contributed HUGELY to modern science and technology (paper money, gunpowder, compass, etc., etc.). 
 
Science a western invention..? Then explain why it is in China that so many of inventions still in use today were made; not to forget that some of the most important scientific advances of the modern world were developed by the Muslims courts of the middle ages. Just for a few examples: base ten numbers and algebra - surely the most important underpinings of modern science (an Arab treatise formed the basic textbook for algebra up to the 16th century), medical science owes a huge debt to Muslim scientist (e.g., the concepts of contagion, circulation of blood, etc.), as well as botany, astronomy, chemistry, etc. From approximately from 800-1500 AD, almost all scientific work was Arab. 
 
An interesting point to note is that the whole idea of conducting experiments as a way to verify scientific theory has its roots in Arab science. Greek science hypothized, theorized, etc., but they rarely experimented - this was simply not something that was considered worth doing! To the Greeks - the arguement was all - whether or not it held in real life was relatively irrelevant (you find the same attitude in Western Medieval civilization). The Arab scientists, on the other hand, were extremely rigorous in putting to the test of experiment any hypothesis, and in observing and recording meticulously every detail - something that I am sure we can all agree is the underpining of modern science. 
 
So before you go off on your theory, Goffredo, remember the contributions of the Arabs. As some writers have commented, modern science owes it current form - if not its very existence - to the contributions of Arab scientists. 
 
To return to Hanson, another thing I've heard is that he ignores battles that contradict his theses; e.g., one battle in which the Knights defeated the Turks is used, but what about all the battles were the Knights got defeated? How does he explain the undeniable (and definitely as blood-thirsty as any westerner) superiority of the Hunnic and Mongol hordes (not to speak of Ottoman military dominance from 1350s on up). 
 
Generally speaking, Hanson's thoughts are interesting (they rarely are not), but seem to ignore events and historical facts that could contradict his theses (and tries to distort anything that can't). Which sounds very much like his earlier books, from my experience and a common failing with most books of this kind. 
 
--- Hmm, when will I learn to write short posts? 
Strategy 
Designer/Developer 
Imperium - Rise of Rome

Goffredo · 06-25-2002, 08:06 AM

Hi 
I think the reason I don't agree with the assessment of Chinese culture is that I make a distinction between science and technology. Technology requires systematic trials and assesments of success. Terra cotta, maybe the first sophisitcated non-mechanical invention, is not banal as the correct mix of inert and active components is very tricky to find. Somebody must have noticed a freak effect and then focused on it and made all kinds of trials and errors to define the best procedure. Similarly the invention of paper, gunpowder, and the compass require a systematic approach to perfect them into usable instruments. Again think about the compass: someone made another fantastically freak observation that hot and rapidly cooling thin needles (a needle factory smith) floating on the cooling water, due to surface tension, align in a common direction. I find it truely remarkable. But in my mind that still does not make science. 
 
Regards Greek views of theory versus pratice I disagree because you forget that Archimedes and many others were very practical oriented. There has always been a debate in the Greek world and thruout our philosophical history as to what is most important, theory or experiment, and there always will be as it is a difficult and subtle philosophical question. 
 
Regards the Arabs I think there is a certain degree of revisionism at work here. I personally never believed the Arabs contributed much. Who did the work were those that the Arabs conquered. The Arabs conquered the Byzantine east with its Alexandria. That the Arabs protected and cultivated and allowed their subjects to work while the West was in a confused state is true. But there is a fundamental cultural difference, at work then as it is at work still today: for the Islamic world the Koran is the measure of all things. In the Hellenisitic-Roman, even in the middle ages and finally in the Renaissance world, Man is the measure of all things. Culture does make a great difference. I believe that Science cannot work if there is another level of "truth" that sets priorities. This separation of religion from the study of nature or from politics is what is the unique contribution of the West. Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/ugoffredo.showPublicProfile?language=EN>goffredo</A> at: 6/25/02 11:17:50 am

StrategyM · 06-25-2002, 11:01 AM

Hi Goffredo. 
 
Regarding your distinction between science and technology in China, I won't comment on particulars - I only know that the Chinese invented a lot of things - not how or why they did it. 
But - no offence - I don't get the impression from what you write that you have sufficient insight into Chinese science to determine whether or not they actually did perform science or not. 
 
It is very interesting that you choose Archimedes as an example of a practically oriented Greek scientist. Allow me to quote to you then, the words of Plutarch - a Greek - about one of the greatest of the Greeks (emphasis in text is mine). 
 
Quote:<hr> Yet Archimedes possessed so high a spirit, so profound a soul, and such treasures of scientific knowledge, that though these inventions had now obtained him the renown of more than human sagacity, he yet would not deign to leave behind him any commentary or writing on such subjects; but, repudiating as sordid and ignoble the whole trade of engineering, and every sort of art that lends itself to mere use and profit, he placed his whole affection and ambition in those purer speculations where there can be no reference to the vulgar needs of life; studies, the superiority of which to all others is unquestioned, and in which the only doubt can be whether the beauty and grandeur of the subjects examined, of the precision and cogency of the methods and means of proof, most deserve our admiration.<hr> 
 
This is not just an isolated description of Archimedes, but a general commentary on the state of Greek science easily verified by simmilar observations. As Plutarch makes clear, such an attitude as displayed by Archimedes was admired by contemporary and latter Greeks - but would be almost incomprehensible to a scientist of today. 
 
Regarding your claims about non-Arabs doing all the scientific work in the Arab world, I think you are way off base. 
 
Note: When I say Arab, I follow the standard definition of meaning someone of the Muslim culture. Whether his original great-great-grandfather was Greek, Spanish, Persian, Jew, etc. is of no import. The core point in relation to this discussion is that he was part of and had typically lived his entire life as part of a Muslim culture - and therefore what - by Hanson's thesis - would be considered a "non-western" culture. You also seem to forget that the lands conquored by the Muslims were non-western to begin with, and still primarily non-western by the time the Roman empire was dissolved (for example, Christian priests at Carthage still had to learn Punic if they wished to speak with the rural population in 450 AD). Helleno-Roman civilization in Syria, Egypt, and Africa was merely a crust which unavoidably was absorbed into the new Arab culture. 
 
It is easy to cite at least 20 Arab scientists of this era with Arab names remarkable for their achievements in the fields of science (we can start with one - al-Khwarizmi, from whose name the word Algorithm comes, and who wrote the book that laid the basis for algebra). If you believe that the Arabs did not contribute to Science, then first 1) prove that all these many scientists were not Arabs by extraction (and yes - there were a number of Christians who flourished under Arab rule and participated in the scientific resurgence), and 2) thereafter prove that they were not Arab by culture (very much harder). 
 
Even if you should succeed in that (which you can't), then please argue that the fact that these scientists were sponsored and encouraged by Arab caliphs isn't in itself a contribution to the development of science (keeping in mind that it was the patronage of Greek princes which allowed people like Euclid and Archimedes to achieve what they did - and the fact that Helleno-Roman civilization was at the same time doing its utmost to repress any creative thought). 
 
Yes - there is always historical revisionism going on, from various angles. But you can't get around the fact that modern science is built upon the scientific influence from muslim scientists. The word algebra itself comes from Arabic al-jabr, literally, the reduction. To try and minimize the considerable influence of muslim science is historical revisionism - one that has been ongoing for a couple of hundred years now (despite Sarton's appreciation of Muslim science in his "History of Science", by labelling the era from 700-1500 the "Muslim age"). 
 
Note that the fact that Muslim science contributed immensely to modern science, doesn't mean that they themselves didn't gain a lot from the Greeks. But they also gained a lot from the Persians, Indians and Chinese - the former two cultures of which are completely ignored by historians of today despite the undeniable facts that they too contributed to modern science (at least the Chinese and Arabs occasionaly get a mention, but let us not forget that the "Arabic numerals" we use today take their origins from a Hindu number system). Just like the Greeks gained from the Babylonians, Egyptians, and their other predecessors. 
 
Modern history has been - and still is - heavily euro-centric. This is a natural fact of history-writing; just look at the heavily USA-centric history being produced by American writers today (in 50 years, many people will no doubt believe that USA fought and won WW2 on its own). The fact that historians who try to correct these deficiencies in historical writing often go overboard in their arguements (like the idiots who claim that Cleopatra was black) is unfortunate and stupid. 
 
But it shouldn't blind us to appreciation of the developments of those who have gone before us. 
 
Gofreddo wrote: 
Quote:<hr> I believe that Science cannot work if there is another level of "truth" that sets priorities.<hr> 
 
It worked fine for the Muslims for more than 500 years - a period during which muslim scientist made huge leaps in understanding. 
 
It is nice of you to mention the Koran, because it is precisely from the Koran that Muslim scientist got the fundamental spur that started their golden age of science: "God should not be invoked to explain what human knowledge can." The Koran repeatedly exhorts its readers to reach for a better understanding. Whereas Helleno-Roman Christianity for those same 600 years championed the exact opposite opinion. It was only with the introduction of new ideas by Scientists who had travelled to the muslim courts that this opinion was slowly changed in the "west" (and that took several hundred of years). 
 
The fact that muslim science later stagnated - in part due to theological domination (one can perhaps speculate that this was the "gift" of western civilization to Muslim civilization - some power hungry mullahs discovered how cushy the popes had it? ) - does not affect the basic falsity of your statement that "religion and science are incompatible". 500 years of scientific development prove you wrong. Perhaps periodical stagnation of science is just one of those things that happen in any society - e.g., Greek science stagnated almost completely in the Hellenistic era (cf. Walbank who has a nice discussion of this). 
 
Note that I usually tend to agree that religion and science (as well as religion and politics) should be separated; but I fail to see it as a some great "contribution" of Western civilization, inasmuch as I can find little proof that this means a lot. Was (is) the priest-rule in Iran any worse than Stalin? I don't think so. I think the point is rather that IDEALOGY (and not religion in particular) should be kept seperate from science and politics. However is this possible?? I doubt it. Without some ideal, there is no spur to science, and simmilarly, someone without any idealogy does not seek to rule. 
 
P.S. I'm not a muslim, or even particularly interested in Islam (though I've read the Koran, just like I've read the Bible). Strategy 
Designer/Developer 
Imperium - Rise of RomeEdited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/ustrategym.showPublicProfile?language=EN>StrategyM</A> at: 6/25/02 1:23:00 pm

Goffredo · 06-25-2002, 12:34 PM

There is much to debate here, views of Plutarch on Archimedes, Chinese and Muslim knowledge, what science is and isn't, whether science and religion are compatible, US-of-A centric history (Russians won WW2 with US and English help) and euro-centric history, and more. I think this should all be discussed. I have opened a pandora' box and am very pleased someone is willing to jump into the ring but maybe this should be moved to OFF TOPIC, althought the thread on Hanson's book should stay here. I wanted someone's comments on the Cannae chapter too. 
 
The two points that I insist on is that I think that there is a difference between science and technology and a profound incompatibility with religion. But these are grandiose debates. Of course I am disagreeing with you saying that the "Arabs", by origin or nuture, prove, with their 500 years of "science", the compatibility between religion and science. Only if I argue the difference further could my position regards Chinese and Arab "science" be made clearer. I guess I was not clear at all and don't know how to do it now. I will think more, maybe more effectively if you keep debating with me. 
 
For the moment all I have time to write is that the difference between technology and science is a subte one that can be superficial, leading to confusion, or deaper depending on who is making the assessment, not in the sense that each and every person has a different opinion but that the view one has of the "issue" depends on his way of dealing with the world. The Greek Plutarch, the roman engineers, and even modern ones - my colleagues down the hall - don't necessarily grasp the difference. Instead those that have had experience in modern research do see and appreciate the difference and understand basic research and how robust and yet delicate it is. The difference is subtle but it can have sharp consequences. A civil or mechanical engineer (modern or ancient) or a modern electronics engineer might never see the difference and hence judge working inventions as evidence for science. Edision, a great inventor with a wonder systematic industrial approach to things, denied being a "scientist" giving little or no importance at all to the work of physicists of his time. His example is telling of how different the technological and scientific cultures are! Without physics not much would have been made of the lightbulb. In the hands of scientists the lightbulb became a vacuum tube, and then electronics was born in the modern sense of the word. Edison's views and inventive approaches are great for initial and sometimes spectacular inventions but scientifically his approach and views are a complete dead end. To dedicate one efforts only to applications may be terribly castrating as the person may become shortsighted or blinded by the need for immediate "purpose". To be able to knock down a castle wall with catapults and other contraptions does not mean one understands how he does it. To invent a compass does not mean one understands magnetism. [you see how the word "understand" takes on an important role]. This happened many times in history and all over the world. Creative and methodical minds do wonderful things but science is something else. This is a wonderful topic for debate but where and how do we do it? 
 
p.s. Algebra is a wonderful contribution to mankind the impact of which cannot be OVERestimated. 
Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/ugoffredo.showPublicProfile?language=EN>goffredo</A> at: 6/25/02 2:38:34 pm

Goffredo · 06-25-2002, 01:26 PM

Mathematics gives more examples of the cultural differences that I find so important. No one denies that Indians, Babylonians or other cultures invented (discovered) wonderful mathematics. But things changed with the Greek approach. For the former math was mysterious and secret affair to be studied by the inititiated. Te emphasis was on "Revelations" and not "proofs". Math does have a mysterious flavor to it and the temptation to get absorbed by its magical properties is real. Pythagoras had a sect and secrecy was their creed. So even the Greek world had this in its genes. We all do! We all like magic. Its cool to feel a part of a special group, to be in direct and exclusive contact with the all-mighty god/gods. But something happened in Greece and in the West; the emphasis was shifted to the proofs. A statement (theorem) without a proof was considered weak if not useless. Putting the emphasis on the proofs made people responsible for their statements. Anyone that found an inconsistency in an argument could stand up and say "the thesis is hogwash". Logic arose when people put a premium on understanding if an argument was sound. The confusion starts and ends here. Argumentation vs faith is where the buck stops. 
Western culture and the christian religion has been aware of this ever since people, intelligent people, realized the need to define what was the jurisdiction of God and what wasn't: state vs religion, freewill vs no freewill, science vs faith. This is our culture, our heritage and I am convinced it is unique and revolutionary. But it is far from obvious and maybe just an accident of history. 
Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/ugoffredo.showPublicProfile?language=EN>goffredo</A> at: 6/25/02 3:26:59 pm

StrategyM · 06-25-2002, 03:03 PM

Hi Goffredo - Sorry, I have not yet read the books, so can not comment on the Cannae chapters. Though from the comments I've read on the book, he - as usual - tries to twist facts that argue against his thesis to fit his own views. How does he explain that a pure mercenary army (Libyans, Numidians, etc.) essentially wiped out the supposedly superior army of "free" men. 
 
From what I've read, the chapter on Vietnam is even more controversial, though. 
 
I agree with a lot of what you say (e.g., we are entirely in agreement that democracy is unnatural); however, your picture of Greek (and by extension Western) science is far too idealistic (and doesn't follow the historic evidence). 
 
Goffredo: 
Quote:<hr> But something happened in Greece and in the West; the emphasis was shifted to the proofs. A statement (theorem) without a proof was considered weak if not useless. Putting the emphasis on the proofs made people responsible for their statements. Anyone that found an inconsistency in an argument could stand up and say "the thesis is hogwash". Logic arose when people put a premium on understanding if an argument was sound. The confusion starts and ends here. Argumentation vs faith is where the buck stops.<hr> 
 
Precisely. 
 
But you strongly overidealize Greek science. For example, Aristotle believed that women had fewer teeth than men but never seems to have hit upon the idea of opening his wife's mouth and counting her teeth. The idea of proving a statement by logic was the essence of Greek science - the idea of proving it by actually observing that it was possible was completely foreign to Greek science. (Need I state that Proof by observation in addition to logic is one of the corner pillars of modern science?) 
 
I'll quote you Al-Beruni, who precisely agrees with what you feel is science: 
Quote:<hr> The trouble with most people is their extravagance in respect of Aristotle's opinions. They believe that there is no possibility of mistake in his views, though they know, that he was only theorizing to the best of his capacity.<hr> 
 
Arab science was driven by the need for proofs; at a time when Western science had decided that everything that was known had already been discovered and proven by Greek "scientists". 
 
Goffredo wrote: 
Quote:<hr> Western culture and the christian religion has been aware of this ever since people, intelligent people, realized the need to define what was the jurisdiction of God and what wasn't: state vs religion, freewill vs no freewill, science vs faith. This is our culture, our heritage and I am convinced it is unique and revolutionary. But it is far from obvious and maybe just an accident of history.<hr> 
 
No - this is a development and influence of the Muslim world. Arab scientists were asking questions and searching for proofs long before the western world finally realized that not everything could be taken as "the word of God". Islam (as well as Christianity, for that matter) has always had a very clear definition of what is the jurisdiction of God and what is the jurisdiction of science. The only difference between the two "cultures" is where that boundary has been, and that boundary moves with the times. 
 
Adelard of Bath, one of the many "western" scientists who went to the east to learn notes this as early as the 1100s: 
 It is a little difficult for you and me to argue about animals. I, with reason for my guide, have learned one thing from my Arab teachers, you, something different; dazzled by the outward show of authority you wear a head-stall. For what else should we call authority but a head-stall? Just as brute animals are led by the head-stall where one pleases, without seeing why or where they are being led, and only follow the halter by which they are held, so many of you, bound and fettered as you are by a low credulity, are led into danger by the authority of writers. 
 
That is the comparison of Arab science with "Western"/Hellenistic science from a man who lived it. 
 
I don't intend to denigrate the Greeks - but science as we have it today (at least by the definition you seem to be going for) didn't start with the Greeks; it started with the Arab scientists of 700-1500 BCE. The Greeks took many important steps along the way - yes - but it was the Arab world that built upon that foundation to develop the science of today. Just as it is with mathematics, where the Greeks built upon the foundations of the Babylonians and Egyptians, and the Arabs again built upon the Greeks. The fact that the Arabs built upon the Greeks does not lessen their contribution, no more than the fact that the Greeks built upon the Egyptians lessens the contribution of the Greeks. 
 
Regarding the whole science vs faith and state vs religion arguement, I don't buy it. The separation of science vs faith is a very recent event - as Charles Darwin could attest. Are you then going to claim that no science has been done pre-1900s? And most modern states - e.g., Denmark - still have not separated state from religion. 
 
Your confusion seems to arise from your belief that modern-day Islam as represented by repressive regimes = Islam. It doesn't. Islam has evolved and developed, just like Christianity (and every other religion and culture) has evolved and developed. Unfortunately, Islam is currently in a situation where repression of knowledge and authoritanism is the order of the day - just like was the order of the day for Christianity a few centuries back (and still is today, in some sects). 2-300 years from now, the picture will again be different (and hopefully better). 
 
Hanson's thesis is built on the idea of a "Western" civilization which has endured from the time of the Greeks. The fact is, there is no such thing. "Western" civilization as we have it today, has changed and mutated under continual influence from external cultures - one of the most important of which have been the Arab culture, which again owes a lot to Persia, etc. - to become what it is today. 
 
But to return to the thesis you started out with: 
Quote:<hr> What characterizes a good argument, a "proof", is the essence of logic (Aristotle). Modern mathematics (Euclid) follows.<hr> 
 
From 700-1500 BCE, the distinctly non-Western Arab culture would have agreed completely with these statements. Algebra (al-Khwarizmi) followed. Whereas "Western" culture would have had you burned on the stake as a heretic. Strategy 
Designer/Developer 
Imperium - Rise of RomeEdited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/ustrategym.showPublicProfile?language=EN>StrategyM</A> at: 6/25/02 5:44:24 pm

StrategyM · 06-25-2002, 03:07 PM

Hi Goffredo. 
 
Found a review of the book on Amazon that comments on the Cannae chapter (and the book in general). 
Quote:<hr> 
Extremely reductionist. Every battle cited is further proof of his thesis. Even Cannae, where an army not of the western tradition the Carthaginians (an extremely contentious statement), defeated the Romans who were the very apotheosis of the western tradition. Hansen has an answer however: the very fact they lost the battle was indicative of the fact that the Romans were able to absorb enormous losses and then raise armies of free citizen soldiers again whilst those of Carthage were doomed to ultimately loose the war because they were ultimately an authoritarian state. Citizen soldier states win even when hey lose. The exception proves the rule as it were.... This is a supremely reductionist argument and one surprising coming from a teacher of the Classics (he must be a little short on his understanding of the Greek method of inquiry --- more Aristotle there Victor!)> Moreover, the Carthagians were at least as Classical Greek in their military tradition as the Macedonian Dictatorship of Alexander. 
<hr> Strategy 
Designer/Developer 
Imperium - Rise of Rome

StrategyM · 06-25-2002, 03:36 PM

As a side-note, thanks for mentioning this book. I had heard of it before, and basically dismissed it (since, IMO, Hanson ideas - while interesting - don't seem to have improved since the "Western Way of War" - and already back then they were full of holes). I now think I may have to buy it along with Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs and Steel" (which sounds like an even more interesting read), if nothing else so that I can violently disagree with it. Strategy 
Designer/Developer 
Imperium - Rise of Rome

Goffredo · 06-25-2002, 04:26 PM

As I understand things, the separation of state and religion is central to all european history, while it has never been an issue in the Islamic world (only recently does one find States that are non-religious in their constitution. The ones that come to mind are Turkey, Syria, Iraq and until recently even the Palistinians. The very bad trend now is that the Palistinians are becoming religious fundamentalists!) 
 
The germanic war lords in the very aftermath of the fall of the roman empire had problems accepting and coping with the aggressive Church of Rome and indeed german emperors fought against the church, militarily and not only abstractly, ever since Charlemagne. This political problem (how to keep things separated) was addressed at all levels including philosophy. The christian church in the East had even yet another different political history. On the other hand, the Islamic Sultans were always religious leaders and not only political ones. There never was a debate on whether this should be so and if not entirely to what degree. It just was NOT AN ISSUE. This is in the genes of Islam, is is NOT in the genes of Christianity. In particular the West was not brushed aside by a tidal wave of christian warriors. That is what happened in the Islamic world. This monolithic Islamic jump start set the stage brushing everything aside and greatly simplifying things. It helped create a relatively politically stable, but an entirely religious, one. Centers of culture thrived in the Islamic world. But, as I said earlier, the lens thru which an Islamic see the world is that of the Koran. This means what it says. The Islamic thinkers were always aware of the Koran and any independent thought was still done knowing that an implicit if not explicit confrontation with the Koran had to be made. Of course I acknowledge this was true and still is for many Christians too. But christian thinkers have always had to come up with all kinds of considerations to justify the actions of emperors and kings NEVER 100% subject to the will of Rome. Of course the church of Rome did everthing possible to project her power and include everything as possible. She still does. But we know what happened. As you say the boundaries shifted. The fact the bounderies in the West have shifted ever more towards politics and thought being independent of religion, while the Islamics have drifted the other way, is in my way of seeing things, very telling. Like a drunk trying to get home, he swings and sways and maybe even goes back on his steps, but the bias, the polarization, is there. He wants to go in a certain direction and with much effort and pain he drifts in the intended direction. Similarly cultures have mechanisms that change and adjust to changes, of course, but there is also a bias that pushes them in certain directions. That bias is present in its genes. I am not a reductionist in the strict sense of the word. But I do think cultures can be metaphorically thought of as having a kind of "personality", and just as people with different personalities, can make the best or the worst of the situations that life throws at them and behave differently. It is not a reductionist description because the behaviour of people is not predictable and many forces push and pull, but trends can still be seen and this can allow a historian to tell a story. But then it is only a story and not an experiment. 
 
p.s.Regards Aristotle deciding not to count the teeth of his wife it is an old criticism and I as a physicist agree. Aristotle's physics is bogus and maybe more attention to observation would have cleared things up. But then maybe not. Observation is only part of the story. Experimentation is a far better approach if however you have a clue of what to look for or what to notice (again I am a physicist and have learned to appreciate how difficult it was for Galileo to do the "right" kind of experiment). Aristotle was a brilliant man and even a very influential one. Most men, of all cultures, are not heroes and find it safter to quote authoratative sources. Hence most people quoted Aristotle rather than checking him. What I find interesting in reading about medieval "science" is that the doubts on the physics of Aristotle actually slowly but inexorably eroded away his credibility because there were a lot of intelligent people out there. The credibility eroded only slowly because initially refuting Aristotle opened up more serious problems. But the erosion was still going on, people accumlated frustrations with its ever increasing inability to account for things, and finally his SYSTEM could be put aside time when the time was ripe. People had become more confident and the price to pay for defending Aristotle's ideas was simply too high to pay. Galileo and Newton did not simply sweep people off there feet with a new TRUTH. Instead the time was ripe to put Aristotle on the book shelf and invest on the new ideas which seemed more promising. A form of economics or mechanism of deminshing returns and wanting to invest in promising new titles. At one point people start acting differently. This "economic" approach (the word "rational" woudld be wrong) is the antibody system that got the west out of a dead-end of the medieval scholastics. 
 
Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/ugoffredo.showPublicProfile?language=EN>goffredo</A> at: 7/17/02 8:25:01 am

Richomeres · 06-25-2002, 06:08 PM

This thread seems to be like a pot of milk. If you leave it simmering and do not keep an eye on it, it boils over. 
 
Anyway, I have read a lot of good argument here, I have read a lot about what science is not. But I have not found an answer to the question 
 
ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‹Å“What is science?ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢ 
 
What is itÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢ s nature, the very core the thing called science? I agree that the Greeks greatly contributed to modern science, but in my opinion their achievement was the invention or utilization of logic. They took an issue, looked at it from all sides, shook it, turned it up side down and if it still worked after all, it was regarded as proved. The Arab scientists surely benefited from this achievement for their research. 
 
But back to the question. As mentioned earlier, in my opinion curiosity is fundamental to man. He is always trying to figure out how the world around him works. From observing his environment, he can discover connections. The further we a go on that ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‹Å“road to enlightenmentÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢, the more complex get the things we find out, as well as the ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‹Å“toolsÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢ we need to go further. It started with more or less simple perceptions like ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…â€œThe-sun-shines-on-a-stone.ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â‚¬Â

StrategyM · 06-25-2002, 09:59 PM

Richomeres, 
 
I completely agree with you that curiousity is fundamental to mankind, irrespective of culture (or any other factors). Curiousity can however be killed by many things - fatigue (e.g., a person living hand to mouth doesn't have time to be curious) or repression (if curiousity is dangerous). 
 
Goffredo, 
 
Yes - the fight between state and religion became central to western history, once the church lost control of the state (or the Emperor lost control of the church). The same pattern is exactly true of the Muslim world - as can be seen e.g., in Pakistan, Egypt, of today etc. The split between state and religion is a simple one of power - and it is as endemic in Muslim states now as it has been in Christian states before. The only difference is that, up until the early 20th century in the Islam world, the one's with secular power also had the religious power. Whereas this split happened 1500 years ago for Christianity in the West (but note the immense power of the Orthodox Eastern church in Zarist Russia - where there was no question of splitting secular and religious authority until the coming of Communism). There is very little cultural difference at play (I won't say none, because nothing is ever that simple), but IMO - the similarities between Christian and Muslim religion, and the similarities between Christian and Muslim culture, are much, much greater than their differences. 
 
But frankly, I am not really interested in discussing religion. I don't think it is something that we are going to agree on anyway, so let's just agree to disagree. 
 
The one point that I'd like to note however, is that Arab (muslim) culture started out as an open, knowledge loving culture - because this was its natural bias. Acceptance of new ideas is (or at least seems) to be a natural feature nomadic cultures, so I don't think your "drunken man" theory holds water either. 
 
As for Aristotle - I'll just repeat my point. It took Western civilization more than 1500 years before anyone in the west attempted to set question marks on his learning. Even though the Arabs had great respect for Greek learning and science (and they did - it is worth noting that most scientific manuscripts that have survived from the classical age only do so because they were translated into Arab) their respect for a great man did not prevent them from questioning his conclusions and searching for proof. That Western civilization at all began to behave in the same way can be directly attributed to the many westerners (one of whom was Fibonacci) who travelled to the muslim "universities", learnt Arab, and transmitted Arab ideas to the west. 
 
No doubt science would have eventually recovered anyway, even without the Muslim diaspora. But you can be absolutely certain that the time to sweep Aristotle off the shelf would NOT have been during the lives of Galileo and Newton, if the fertile interchange with the Muslim world had not occured. 
 
A note on one of your original arguements: 
Quote:<hr> Philosophy and science can begin and then prosper only in a society were there is freedom to speak out and critisize and where one must "prove" his point with an "argument" that must be "convincing".<hr> 
 
It is perhaps worth noting that very, very many of the great Greek thinkers actually lived in monarchies/tyrranies - not democracies. Reason: to have time to be philosophical and scientific, you need to have leisure time to do so, and the only way you can have time for this is when someone else paid for your upkeep (i.e., a powerful patron). And such powerful patrons only existed in "non-free" states. In addition, a free-state could be just as repressive and stiffling of free-thought and speech as any monarchy - as Socrates would be able to testify. 
 
IMO, the reason for the "Western worlds" dominance in respect to "science" (and I use the word here very loosely in the sense of knowledge discovere) is very simply that, due to surplus food production, it became possible to have a large proportion of the population being useless; i.e., not feeding themselves. The fact that "science" then began to discover ways to do more work started a self-propagating and ever quickening cycle ("science" frees up more people to become "scientists" who discover even more ways to increase productivity, etc.) - a cycle which is still ongoing today. 
 
But was it just chance that started this cycle of greater food production? IMO - yes; and it is actually possible to point to a specific time and place that may have caused the spur. The Black Death (which btw probably did more to break the control of the church than any intrinsic "western" cultural freedom wish). The plague hit Europe particularly hard - much harder than it did in other parts of the world. It is a well-known fact that the plague caused serious manpower shortage in the Western world (basically forcing the survivors to be more productive). At the same time - although classical universities close in droves - general literacy increased as local schools opened to fill the gap for the need of a new clergy. The result: the years 1350-1500 see an unprecedented series of productivity-increasing inventions (particularly within agriculture) in Europe. And once the cycle started, the cycle I speak off got well on its way - rising surplus production, rising literacy, and a resulting increase in knowledge discovery. It is from this period as well that mercantilism (which led to capitalism), that Hanson seems to believe comes from the Greeks developed. 
 
I think I'll stop now, before I get carried away on a tangent, and start developing more strange theories. Though for a theory for eplaining the rise of European civilization that I just thought up on the spur of the moment, I think it is every bit (if not more) sensible than what Hanson spouts. 
 
P.S. Even though I'm very sure that one could write an excellent book on the above idea, every bit (if not more) convincing than Hanson's; hey - I could just follow Hanson's lead and ignore the fact that Asia and North Africa were also hit by the plague at all ), I don't believe that it is that simple. IMO, there were a lot of different factors that have influenced what we are today. One (though far from the most important, IMO) is western culture - though western culture itself owes a LOT to Arab culture of the diaspora as well. 
 
P.P.S. I have a deadline for monday that I need to keep to, so may not have much time to participate in much further discussion. It's been a stimulating discussion, though - thanks (maybe I should write a book on my theory - after I've completed Imperium). Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/ustrategym.showPublicProfile?language=EN>StrategyM</A> at: 6/26/02 8:44:36 am

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me