Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

What Is The Greatest Ancient Civilization?

Rate this topic


Praxus

What is the greatest ancient civilization?  

370 members have voted

  1. 1. What is the greatest ancient civilization?

    • Greece
      178
    • Carthage
      3
    • Rome
      65
    • Mongol
      5
    • Babylon
      3
    • Egypt
      7
    • Asyria
      0
    • Persia
      5
    • Phoenicia
      3
    • Chinese
      14


Recommended Posts

That's a terrible joke, India is one of the 4 oldest civilizations

It is old and there is much of value that comes from it, but why would you place it at the forefront of ancient civilizations? The real legacy of India, it seems to me, is the most far fetched mysticism of any culture. If you want mind bending mysticism, India is the place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a terrible joke, India is one of the 4 oldest civilizations

The primative tribes of Africa and Mesopotamia are also "old" Does that mean they are great and we should all cast off all technology, wear loin cloths, and hunt for food and forrage for berries?

It's also one of the most blatant and disgusting examples of mysticism and trampling of basic fundamental human rights (i.e. the caste system and the "untouchables").

Stop making such idiotic statements on this forum. Do you even know who Ayn Rand is and what Objectivism is or are you just an ignorant troll posting absurd stupidity?

Edited by KevinDW78
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why isn't India on the list?
I find the question to be silly, given the presupposition. First, the correct way to answer the question is to raise it in a PM to the original poster, who is the only person capable of definitively answering the question. At the same time, you could ask "Why was Mongolia included"; why was Asyria distinguished from Babylon; why wasn't Sumeria included; why wasn't the Cretan civilization included". The list of "Why wasn't X" included is pretty big. If you are going to include India, you need to include the Aztecs, Mayans, Incas, Nubia, Borno, the Hittites, Vikings, Druids, Atlantis blah blah blah.

If you want to start your own poll about great civilizations that includes as many civilizations as you feel are worthy of considering, feel free.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well first of all I have tried to reply the owner of the thread, but it kept boucing me back to the last page ( I thought my post would've been under his post ); secondly I can't make another thread of the same topic, isn't that spamming? And lastly how should I ask if I want to ask ' Why isn't India on the list '

The primative tribes of Africa and Mesopotamia are also "old" Does that mean they are great and we should all cast off all technology, wear loin cloths, and hunt for food and forrage for berries?

It's also one of the most blatant and disgusting examples of mysticism and trampling of basic fundamental human rights (i.e. the caste system and the "untouchables").

Stop making such idiotic statements on this forum. Do you even know who Ayn Rand is and what Objectivism is or are you just an ignorant troll posting absurd stupidity?

I didn't say that and the reason I didn't name those tribes is because most people don't even know who they are. Ayn Rand is that woman who created Objectivism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

War: The original poster didn't set a standard for what he meant be 'Great' when he started this thread, so this thread has generally diverged into an argument with no clear definition. However, a parallel topic is one on 'Why are we so Grecophillic?' which I think sets the standard for this thread. Basically, there was a big old argument over Earthquake detectors, gunpowder and various other inventions by the Chinese (including the 'science' of stabbing arbitrary points in the human body).

What came out of that was, yes, the Chinese might have made remarkable inventions, but there was no consistency behind them, no driving philosophy, no methodology that we can use today. They invented these things, sure, but then, Monks too came up with medicines and the like in the Dark Ages - it was necessary to invent these things, but there was no philosophy stating invention and the application of man's mind to reality was important, that man was an inventor. It was just a dirty little practice they had to do to stay alive - but it was far, far from any central focus of their lives. So, the Chinese had philosophy, but one based in mystical explanations, in the forces of Gods or Supreme energies. Their inventions were fairly good, but they were independent inventions, ones which came about for whatever reason, but not due to any guiding philosophy of man as the reasoning creator (as whoever pointed out, the Chinese realised gunpowder was explosive stuff, but it was Westerners who already had a philosophical standing order to apply observations in reality towards invention, and used it to create guns).

Now, contrasted with the Greeks, we see Philosophy developed as a systematic, scientific method for discovering reality. Rather than making up tales of mystical forces, the Greeks tried to give a metaphysical explanation of the world that was actually delimited, finite, one which actually involved the obeying of concrete laws, rather than the random whims of mystical forces. As Robert Mayhew put it at OCON this year, on his lecture on Thales, the progression from Religion to Philosophy within Ancient Greece was that of 'putting the Gods in their metaphysical place'. That is, whatever religious elements remained, they were not primary, 'higher' forces, but just forces of this world, which had to obey certain rules.

Essentially, this lead to all the remarkable achievements of the Western world, this understanding of metaphysical reality as something independent of consciousness, which could be understood by men, and even manipulated according to its own laws. Such a philosophy, as far as I'm aware, and feel free, if you think Indian philosophy holds otherwise, was unique to Greek civilisation (and the later Roman civilisation - which one could argue was even better, because they truely understood what it meant to apply Reason to practical issues, to the point that they derided the 'girly' Greek way of Reasoning outside the realm of actual, practical solutions to problems).

I'm always open to new knowledge, to being corrected, but only if someone actually shows me evidence. So, since you at least think India is interesting enough to be on this list, please show us what they invented which is central to our lives today.

Edited by Tenure
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand all the votes for Rome. Rome was mostly a very unfree and cruel country. Greece, in many of the city-states, was at least semi-free.
I think it stems from different criteria of greatness. Is military power and a unifying central government the measure of greatness? The original question very strongly encourages the "government equals great" view, by including the Mongols (who did not have a civilization, except after they conquered one), not to mention the many votes for China and Egypt which were again centralized dictatorships. As more than one person was wondered, "Greatest by what standard; great in what; great at what?".
Link to comment
Share on other sites

War, the zero comes from India, but not without Central Asian Al-Khwarizimi (Ruveyn where are you?), so I guess it should be in a list of the most important civilizations. Then of course the question of what a civilization is arises. If a Westerner such as myself considers what is now the PRC, the Republic of China, and Singapore, and their history, all "China"_; then I guess I fishermen from Dalian could consider Greece, the Roman Empire, the French Kingdom, Britannia, and ultimately the USA, the SAME Civilization. The origin of the name "West" to refer a ciilization comes from the schism 1400 years ago and refers to "Western Christianity" in contrast to "Eastern Orthodox" tradition. The line loosely follows the division of the Roman Empire, but that's not the origin.

By an Objectivist standard there has not been yet any proper civilization since its definition implies the full grasping of rights. Etymologically, civilization comes from civitas ("city") so "right-grasping" Aztects would thus have to be considered civilized. I'm sorry but for historiographic purposes I am inclined to use the latter definition since it differentiates the Aztecs from the vast expanses of inhabitated americas where no cities were built. So I -almoast- equate civilization with sedentarism. I and suspect (by the replies) most of you do as well.

War: The original poster didn't set a standard for what he meant be 'Great' when he started this thread, so this thread has generally diverged into an argument with no clear definition. However, a parallel topic is one on 'Why are we so Grecophillic?' which I think sets the standard for this thread. Basically, there was a big old argument over Earthquake detectors, gunpowder and various other inventions by the Chinese (including the 'science' of stabbing arbitrary points in the human body).

What came out of that was, yes, the Chinese might have made remarkable inventions, but there was no consistency behind them, no driving philosophy, no methodology that we can use today. They invented these things, sure, but then, Monks too came up with medicines and the like in the Dark Ages - it was necessary to invent these things, but there was no philosophy stating invention and the application of man's mind to reality was important, that man was an inventor. It was just a dirty little practice they had to do to stay alive - but it was far, far from any central focus of their lives. So, the Chinese had philosophy, but one based in mystical explanations, in the forces of Gods or Supreme energies. Their inventions were fairly good, but they were independent inventions, ones which came about for whatever reason, but not due to any guiding philosophy of man as the reasoning creator (as whoever pointed out, the Chinese realised gunpowder was explosive stuff, but it was Westerners who already had a philosophical standing order to apply observations in reality towards invention, and used it to create guns).

Now, contrasted with the Greeks, we see Philosophy developed as a systematic, scientific method for discovering reality. Rather than making up tales of mystical forces, the Greeks tried to give a metaphysical explanation of the world that was actually delimited, finite, one which actually involved the obeying of concrete laws, rather than the random whims of mystical forces. As Robert Mayhew put it at OCON this year, on his lecture on Thales, the progression from Religion to Philosophy within Ancient Greece was that of 'putting the Gods in their metaphysical place'. That is, whatever religious elements remained, they were not primary, 'higher' forces, but just forces of this world, which had to obey certain rules.

Essentially, this lead to all the remarkable achievements of the Western world, this understanding of metaphysical reality as something independent of consciousness, which could be understood by men, and even manipulated according to its own laws. Such a philosophy, as far as I'm aware, and feel free, if you think Indian philosophy holds otherwise, was unique to Greek civilisation (and the later Roman civilisation - which one could argue was even better, because they truely understood what it meant to apply Reason to practical issues, to the point that they derided the 'girly' Greek way of Reasoning outside the realm of actual, practical solutions to problems).

I'm always open to new knowledge, to being corrected, but only if someone actually shows me evidence. So, since you at least think India is interesting enough to be on this list, please show us what they invented which is central to our lives today.

I don't surrender to it, either. It has no dominance over me, due to its complete lack of proof. ;)

Was Chinese philosophy less consistent than Western philosophy? Confucian philosophy was banned from time to time, but it was mainly ugly religious budhism that was prohibited for most of its history (?).

This takes me back to answering Moebius.

It is precisely the success of the chinese settlers in Singapore, Indonesia, etc, that prompted me the question (over and over) of why didn't a unified china not invaded those territories "in time". Then I suspected it was the same union that "saved" it from the northern warmongerers. Another interesting coincidence/difference. While the Romans activeley reppelled the Barbarians, Western History was made by marriage of the Mediterranean Citizen and Barbarian from the woods or the steppes. As I understand China was broken out only twice (prolly wrong), during the Kublai Khan empire with the Song remaninng in the South, and finally the Manchu taking over China to its empirial end - and ultimatlely through natioanalism and communism, then Comrade Xiaping and Milton Friedman, the Chinese seem to be prepared enough to take back the title it'd loosely lost in the XVII c.

So it was Western Philosophies (such as nationalism, socialism, and later capitalism in its pragmatic compromised Chicago variant) that influxed China to its humpy recovery.

I guess my point with this is one made by the book "the Medici Effect" (?): that is the crossroads of cultures (I'd say of philosophies) that makes for a city or a civilization's success.

I can prove this further:

The "peoples" (linguistically classified) that experimented the more travel and contact in a shorter lapse ,whether as aggressors or victims, were the most succesful (think English or Israelites) while the ones who never left their homeland nor were invaded by foreign powers until very recently were left behind (think Western or Subsaharian Africa)

Native Americans, or for a more extreme example, Aboriginal Australians, DID travel a lot out of Africa, and they might have been mighty powerful and witty back then, but stagnated for the last couple of millenia because for their continental isolation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

War, the zero comes from India, but not without Central Asian Al-Khwarizimi (Ruveyn where are you?), so I guess it should be in a list of the most important civilizations. Then of course the question of what a civilization is arises. If a Westerner such as myself considers what is now the PRC, the Republic of China, and Singapore, and their history, all "China"_; then I guess I fishermen from Dalian could consider Greece, the Roman Empire, the French Kingdom, Britannia, and ultimately the USA, the SAME Civilization. The origin of the name "West" to refer a ciilization comes from the schism 1400 years ago and refers to "Western Christianity" in contrast to "Eastern Orthodox" tradition. The line loosely follows the division of the Roman Empire, but that's not the origin.

By an Objectivist standard there has not been yet any proper civilization since its definition implies the full grasping of rights. Etymologically, civilization comes from civitas ("city") so "right-grasping" Aztects would thus have to be considered civilized. I'm sorry but for historiographic purposes I am inclined to use the latter definition since it differentiates the Aztecs from the vast expanses of inhabitated americas where no cities were built. So I -almoast- equate civilization with sedentarism. I and suspect (by the replies) most of you do as well.

Was Chinese philosophy less consistent than Western philosophy? Confucian philosophy was banned from time to time, but it was mainly ugly religious budhism that was prohibited for most of its history (?).

This takes me back to answering Moebius.

It is precisely the success of the chinese settlers in Singapore, Indonesia, etc, that prompted me the question (over and over) of why didn't a unified china not invaded those territories "in time". Then I suspected it was the same union that "saved" it from the northern warmongerers. Another interesting coincidence/difference. While the Romans activeley reppelled the Barbarians, Western History was made by marriage of the Mediterranean Citizen and Barbarian from the woods or the steppes. As I understand China was broken out only twice (prolly wrong), during the Kublai Khan empire with the Song remaninng in the South, and finally the Manchu taking over China to its empirial end - and ultimatlely through natioanalism and communism, then Comrade Xiaping and Milton Friedman, the Chinese seem to be prepared enough to take back the title it'd loosely lost in the XVII c.

So it was Western Philosophies (such as nationalism, socialism, and later capitalism in its pragmatic compromised Chicago variant) that influxed China to its humpy recovery.

I guess my point with this is one made by the book "the Medici Effect" (?): that is the crossroads of cultures (I'd say of philosophies) that makes for a city or a civilization's success.

I can prove this further:

The "peoples" (linguistically classified) that experimented the more travel and contact in a shorter lapse ,whether as aggressors or victims, were the most succesful (think English or Israelites) while the ones who never left their homeland nor were invaded by foreign powers until very recently were left behind (think Western or Subsaharian Africa)

Native Americans, or for a more extreme example, Aboriginal Australians, DID travel a lot out of Africa, and they might have been mighty powerful and witty back then, but stagnated for the last couple of millenia because for their continental isolation.

Are you agreeing or disagreeing ........?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

with what? whether India should have been included in a thread I didn't create inside a forum that's not owned by me?

I guess my point was that 1) What constitutes Civilization is tricky and 2) The nature and boundaries of the "different" civilizations are yet to be re-defenied. i.e. I was pointing out to the origin of the term West.

A Linguistics definition would make Indian and British civilizations, pretty close since they are both indo-arians, while leaving out everything north and east of the himalayasz. But of course by that same definition, The Finnish and the Hungarians could not be considered Indoarians.

Edited by volco
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
  • 1 month later...

These are all very hard questions and I can see how people would think that the greek civilization was the greatest.

However, I do not think this way. There can probably be no answer to this large question. Greeks were great thinkers, but they were not great builders.

Romans were great builders but weren't great thinkers. There are just countless ideas. However, when you say ancient, you may want to think about

ancient from now! The greeks were great compared to what they could've thought about 5000 years ago!! Americans would be great if you wanted to think

back from 5000 years later. Boy, they could nuke 1/1000th of the planet 2000 light years away from here called Earth. However, i believe that the babylonians

or egyptians were the greatest. Egyptians built enormous pyramids with hidden tunnels here and there and what's more is, grave robber were smarter! they

could still get past them all and what i think is they created an almost indestructible enormous thing just to honor one leader. they wrapped the dead in linen and that was what i feel is really smart. Museums can still see King tutkansteanfutkin or something like that.... and all. babylonians created similiars and great cities!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greeks were great thinkers, but they were not great builders.

But at least they were good at using capital letters! B)

Seriously, though, I'm not sure why you say they weren't great builders. What do you think makes a great builder? If it's the ability to create large structures, then yes, all nations were second-rate builders compared to Egypt in ancient times. But if you apply the standards of Objectivist ethics and esthetics--the good is that which is conducive to man's life qua man, and the beautiful is that which projects man's highest potential--then the buildings of ancient Greece were second to none.

And, more importantly, why is being great builders more important in judging a civilization than being great thinkers? Again, if your standard is man's life, and you consider that man's primary means of survival is his ability to think, nothing is more important than being great thinkers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...
And, more importantly, why is being great builders more important in judging a civilization than being great thinkers? Again, if your standard is man's life, and you consider that man's primary means of survival is his ability to think, nothing is more important than being great thinkers.

Because thinking without action, i.e. building, is useless - just as it's useless to build a large structure with no actual use.

If your standard of morality is man's life, then man's philosophy is as important as man's sewer systems. This reminds me of Ayn Rand recognizing value both in an microscope and in a lipstick.

Rerum Civitae - on the cities:

I have the theory that -before XVIc. globalization that is- there were two major civilizations:

The Chinese Civilization which is circular and inwards - that's why it kept its identity - and

The Western Civilization which is fluid directed and outwards: Egypt> Krete> Mileto> Golden Greece> Rome> Carolingians > Holy Roman Empire > England >. British Empire and finally The American Republic , they are all the same western civilization - through time.

Economically the two major areas of trade were China and North Atlantic. It was Mercantilism but even yet, that says something about these two civs.

So what's the greatest ancienct civilization? Western Civilization! But it's not only ancient, it still exist, with a different geography and not such a different language, but with the same essence: the essence that brings us together in this kind of msg boards :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand all the votes for Rome. Rome was mostly a very unfree and cruel country. Greece, in many of the city-states, was at least semi-free.

You could say the same of the British Empire, or even of America! And it's wrong, because it's platonic, you look for perfect freedom.

Rome was LESS cruel than greece, mainly because they "invented" the rule of LAW (not just order, but jurisprudence). Which place on those barbarian times was a tiny bit freer than the Roman Provinces? Phrygia?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Taking an idea and create something new from it is one thing, and copying is another. Sure, maybe Romans had a bit different civilization than Greeks but that's all. Nothing innovative, just Greek ideas presented in a different way.

We distinguish Rome and Greece for these changes in Greek culture after the Romans, and the newly created fusion of Greek ideas and Roman practice in the Roman empire.

Many said that the Roman empire lasted for over thousand years, but the thing is that the real Roman empire lasted 450 years, the later continuation of "Roman" empire that lasted over thousand years was purely Greek, that's why modern historians changed the term of Roman empire and call it Byzantine empire.

And after the collapse of Byzantine empire, Greek scholars migrated to western Europe and brought with them old texts and new knowledge and gave rise to the renaissance. Greeks had been innovators and they spread their ideas to Europe. Romans were something in between.

Edited by aelopix
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...
Taking an idea and create something new from it is one thing, and copying is another. Sure, maybe Romans had a bit different civilization than Greeks but that's all. Nothing innovative, just Greek ideas presented in a different way.

We distinguish Rome and Greece for these changes in Greek culture after the Romans, and the newly created fusion of Greek ideas and Roman practice in the Roman empire.

Many said that the Roman empire lasted for over thousand years, but the thing is that the real Roman empire lasted 450 years, the later continuation of "Roman" empire that lasted over thousand years was purely Greek, that's why modern historians changed the term of Roman empire and call it Byzantine empire.

And after the collapse of Byzantine empire, Greek scholars migrated to western Europe and brought with them old texts and new knowledge and gave rise to the renaissance. Greeks had been innovators and they spread their ideas to Europe. Romans were something in between.

And Ancient Rome's organized and innovative uses of a constitution, checks and balances, and a Republican separation of powers have no influence on your opinion, clearly. I wouldn't deny the vast expansions and improvements brought about by the Greeks, but don't make up nonsense like this. The Ancient Romans accomplished a lot over their existence, especially within the first 450 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
And Ancient Rome's organized and innovative uses of a constitution, checks and balances, and a Republican separation of powers have no influence on your opinion, clearly. I wouldn't deny the vast expansions and improvements brought about by the Greeks, but don't make up nonsense like this. The Ancient Romans accomplished a lot over their existence, especially within the first 450 years.

Those checks and balances did not survive Caesar and Pompei Magnus for too long. By the time Augustus cemented his authority and established Rome as an empire (the Republic was effectively dead by this time) all the checks between the plebians and the patricians had vanished. From then on, Rome had a fatal instability. Power succession just could not be peaceful in a reliable way. After Marcus Aurelius, who was a decent and moderate man as Emperors go, it was down the pipes for Rome. Somewhere the Rome changed from an Empire with an Army to and Army which was an Empire. The People ceased to matter.

Bob Kolker

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm always open to new knowledge, to being corrected, but only if someone actually shows me evidence. So, since you at least think India is interesting enough to be on this list, please show us what they invented which is central to our lives today.

Base ten arithmetic. It came to Europe by way of the Arabs but was invented independently in India (where the Muslim scholars learned it), China and in what is now Mexico in the New World. All independently. India under the Guptas was an intellectually energetic place. The Gupta dynasty cosmologist figure the age of the universe in the billions of years, much more advanced than the Christian, Jewish or Muslim cosmology. In Europe, Lord Kelvin figure the Earth was maybe fifty million years old, so the Gupta cosmologists were ahead of the Brits in the late 19th century on the question of the age of the cosmos. Indian astronomers had the heliocentric idea before Copernicus. But empires are born flourish and die in the course of time. The nifty stuff the Gupta dynasty did eventually went to wreck and ruin. And so it goes.

Ten thousand years from now archeologists of a future society will be sifting through our ruins wondering where we lost our way. Empires, societies and cultures seem to have a limited shelf life.

Bob Kolker

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
I voted for Rome for pretty much the same reasons as Free Capitalist. It should be noted, however, that while the Mongols had savage customs, when it came to laws, they were very advanced for an Asian tribe.

For example, while even in the West you could still be executed for all sorts of ridiculous offenses, and it was even worse in the "civilized" parts of Asia (in China people were beheaded for not bowing properly to a nobleman), the Mongols only had two irrational uses of capital punishment: as punishment for adultery and cattle theft.

Still, quite clearly, the Romans and Greeks are far superior to the Mongols from an Objectivist perspective. Being great at war is not one of the primary traits of a great culture.

Ancient Western Civilization was comprised of 3 cultures: The Greeks, The Romans, and The Etruscans who were unfortunately left out. I've always liked the Greeks but I voted for Egypt as far as greatness is concerned and would put the Etruscans at number 2. Why would a free capitalist vote for Rome rather than Athens?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...