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

Greece discovered reason as such.

Humans have always used reason. It was Greek thinkers who discovered (or invented) the axiomatic method for geometry. Thales is usually credited with this.

I seriously doubt whether the Great Pyramid which took over 20 years to build could have been done absent reason. In addition to designing the structure just the management and the logistics for feeding a labor force of over 200,000 and getting the large stone blocks cut and delivered to site, required logical thinking. The scribes also had to do a lot of numerical work to set the labor and material quotas. That requires reason.

I am not sure exactly what you mean by reason -as such-. Reason is always about something. It is essentially solving problems, and problems regardless of the generality of the technique of solution are always particular problems. Or particular kinds of problems.

Bob Kolker

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Humans have always used reason. It was Greek thinkers who discovered (or invented) the axiomatic method for geometry. Thales is usually credited with this.

Sure, humans have always used reason implicitly, in a hit-and-miss way, but the Greeks discovered its value and the method by which you can stick to it, logic. The idea that there is an objective world out there, and that we are fallible beings who must use or reason to understand it is a Greek conception. Before that, people were given to believing in oracles (or gods) that just gave you knowledge by some mystical means.

Thales is the father of philosophy and math. Philosophy because he was the first to try and explain things in a purely natural way, in math because he came up with the concept of proof, which gave it rigor that it had never had.

I agree that ideas that came out during the Enlightenment period was probably the most influential ideas in the modern world. And it definitely --albeit indirectly-- influenced the Industrial Revolution (which I think had more to do with technology than philosophy). And yes, Greek culture influenced Roman culture, which in turn influenced the Renaissance, which in turn influenced the Industrial Revolution.

However to say that ancient Greece is the Greatest civilization based on the influence it had several millennia later is over-stretching it a bit. It would be akin to saying that Dr. J is the greatest basketball player because a couple of decades down the line he influenced Michael Jordan.

I don't see how that analogy works. We're talking about ideas here, which are somewhat orthogonal to sports. The fact is the ideas of Aristotle were necessary to the rise of the West and are necessary to the continual rise.

A certain view of the world was required, one which embraced the notion that men are fallible and so we must rigorously check our conclusions against sensory data. We don't get our knowledge from oracles, we get it from our reasoning minds. Along with that goes the view that the world is orderly and knowable. So, we ended up with an epistemology that led to logic and science as the corner stone of Greek culture. Furthermore, the culture was very man centered, in that men were valued. The human body was glorified.

This is discussed earlier in the thread, but I want to restate it. The greatness of a civilization I think should be judged by its totality, with particular emphasis on its cultural dominance during the time period of its existence. The influence of Greece is relevant only because of its absorption by other cultures, after the original Greeks were conquered and destroyed.

The level of achievement in life enhancing areas should be the measure of the greatness of a culture, which comes from the ideas of the culture. The fundamental epistemology, Aristotelian and to some extent Ionian, of the Greeks is the engine that made and is making the West and now much of the world. This foundation is the rocket thruster behind our continual success. The promise of science and reason for our futures is still very strong today.

The point I am trying to make is that Rome, the Renaissance, or the Industrial Revolution should not be equated with Greek culture. Despite being influenced by the Greeks, they are distinct cultural identities.

Without that influence, they’d likely be nothing cultures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without that influence, they’d likely be nothing cultures.

Like China, in a better day that built the largest cities in the world (read Marco Polo, on this) and launched the greatest fleets to ever sail the ocean prior to steam ships (Cheng He). The Chinese reached great heights in technology with no help from the Greeks whatsoever. They also invented printing and type, as well as paper money.

The Persians built a 130 mile canal through a desert to connect the Red Sea and the Mediterenian Sea. No help from the Greeks. Maybe from the Egyptians, which is where the Greeks got their geometry in the first place. We still use the Persian-Babylonian units of time. Sixty minutes to the hour, Sixty seconds to the minute. Three hundred and sixty degrees to the full circle arc. The Babylonians also had positional notation for numbers, base 60. The Greek system of Arithmetic like that of the Romans and Hebrews was a train wreck.

The Egyptians built the greatest and tallest buildings in the world (prior to the Eiffel Tower) without any help from the Greeks.

Because of Rome, Greek modalities survived and even spread to the East, eventually to the Islamic Domains by way of Byzantium.

The Greeks may have had a word for it, but they did not invent Every Good Idea.

Bob Kolker

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greece discovered reason as such.
How can you "discover" reason?When the first man took up a stone and shaped it into an axe, he was reasoning. When the first man took up a stick and started a fire, he was reasoning.
Before that, people were given to believing in oracles (or gods) that just gave you knowledge by some mystical means.
I thought the Greeks believed in oracles?And Gods and demons too, among other things.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see how that analogy works. We're talking about ideas here, which are somewhat orthogonal to sports.

Yes, we're obviously not talking about sports. It's an analogy, and it's using basketball players metaphorically. The point is in comparing the parallel relationship between what comes before and what comes after (Greek-Dr.J : Renaissance-MJ) in each respective case, and not the relationship between idea and sports.

Or do you still not get it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without that influence, they’d likely be nothing cultures.

Yeah and without some guy in Africa discovering how to use fire, we'd all still probably be little more than intelligent apes. I suppose we should give credit to Africa?

The point is that while earlier cultures may have influenced later cultures, the achievements of the later cultures should be judged by its own merits. Otherwise the oldest cultures would just be automatically the "greater" one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can you "discover" reason?When the first man took up a stone and shaped it into an axe, he was reasoning. When the first man took up a stick and started a fire, he was reasoning.I thought the Greeks believed in oracles?And Gods and demons too, among other things.

Sure they did, but the thing that separated them is the ones who didn't think that way. There were several schools of philosophy in Greece.

Yes, we're obviously not talking about sports. It's an analogy, and it's using basketball players metaphorically. The point is in comparing the parallel relationship between what comes before and what comes after (Greek-Dr.J : Renaissance-MJ) in each respective case, and not the relationship between idea and sports.

Or do you still not get it?

It's not that I didn't "get it", it's that I didn't agree with it. You were using the argument as an analogy.

An argument by analogy is an inductive argument of the form:

1. A and B have property S

2 A has property P

3 Therefore B has property P

Both A and B have to be similar in some respect, S. And, there needs to be a real connection between S and P.

How did DJ influence MJ? How did the Greeks influence the Italians in the Renaissance? DJ may have made MJ a better basketball player, or may have made him decide to be a player. What was the influence? The Greeks made the whole Renaissance possible: without the Greeks, no Renaissance. There is a causal link that produced a foundation without which not. Without DJ, I think MJ would still have been a great player, or maybe a really good player.

Yeah and without some guy in Africa discovering how to use fire, we'd all still probably be little more than intelligent apes. I suppose we should give credit to Africa?

The point is that while earlier cultures may have influenced later cultures, the achievements of the later cultures should be judged by its own merits. Otherwise the oldest cultures would just be automatically the "greater" one.

You're not really addressing my point. Earlier cultures often deserve credit for boosting up later cultures, but what is important is the immensity of the value of the ideas. Every culture does not produce great ideas, and of those that produce great ideas, they do not all produce equally great ideas. The weight and power of the ideas of the Greeks is seminal to our scientific, this worldly way of life. Without the Greeks those living in the UK would likely still be Druids, stacking stones on top of each other, and using slings for their state of the art weaponry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure they did, but the thing that separated them is the ones who didn't think that way. There were several schools of philosophy in Greece.

I would bet that the majority of Greeks believed in Gods and oracles. The fact that a small minority did not does not reflect the culture as a whole.

An argument by analogy is an inductive argument of the form:

1. A and B have property S

2 A has property P

3 Therefore B has property P

Both A and B have to be similar in some respect, S. And, there needs to be a real connection between S and P.

You must be missing a given somewhere in your proof. As is you cannot arrive at your conclusion logically.

If you really want I could write something on the correlation between Michael Jordan and Dr. J, but that's not really the point. The bottom line is that each culture should be judged based on its own merits, not how much it influenced another culture. You cannot say that "if it wasn't for the Greeks, Western culture would have never happened". You don't know that. If the man who discovered fire didn't, someone else probably would have. It's obvious that some of the most important inventions in human history like language, agriculture, or domestication of animals developed independently. Why can't a reason based philosophy or the scientific theory?

It isn't like I am saying that the Greeks weren't the first ones to refine and concretize a rational philosophy. But if one man makes a tool, and another man built a magnificent house with the said tool, who should get the credit? This is the gist of what the first basketball analogy was saying -- Dr. J paved the road by popularizing flashiness, showmanship, dunks, and individual stardom, but Michael Jordan was the one that climbed the mountain to its apex.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It isn't like I am saying that the Greeks weren't the first ones to refine and concretize a rational philosophy. But if one man makes a tool, and another man built a magnificent house with the said tool, who should get the credit? This is the gist of what the first basketball analogy was saying -- Dr. J paved the road by popularizing flashiness, showmanship, dunks, and individual stardom, but Michael Jordan was the one that climbed the mountain to its apex.

They both should. The first man for making a tool that had a use he did not anticipate and the second man for using a tool in a way that its creator did not even imagine.

That little vignette is the story of progress. Synergy. Unanticipated uses. Unimagined extensions. This applies to ideas as well as concrete implements. Little did the Greeks imagine to what extent their invention of axiomatic geometry would be used. They are to be praised for being the ones to release geometry from the bonds of only practical use and the latter day mathematicians are to be praised for taking axiomatic mathematics to places the Greeks never dreamed of.

Bob Kolker

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They both should. The first man for making a tool that had a use he did not anticipate and the second man for using a tool in a way that its creator did not even imagine.

Alright. But the house builder nevertheless is the one that built the house, not the tool maker. Or better yet, say I saw someone built a hovel out of mud bricks, got inspired by that idea and built the Taj Mahal, you would not say that the man who built the hovel was a greater builder than the man who built a palace. Sure, give credit where it is due, but the achievement of the later man's labor is independent from the man that inspired the original idea.

In any case, being the first to do something does not in and of itself make you great. On top of that, the fact that some minority groups among a culture came up with a few good (or great, whatever) ideas does not reflect on the strength or greatness of the culture as a whole. So again, it is my opinion that the culture's "greatness" should be judged in its totality, in and of itself, and relative to its historical period and geographic location. It should not be based on the achievements of later cultures that they may have inspired (and may or may not have arisen independently regardless of their influence).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Greeks may have had a word for it, but they did not invent Every Good Idea.

I think I see what you're saying. You're saying that the Greeks did not invent Every Good Idea. Is that correct?

That's a good point. If you hadn't told me that, I would have been way off on some wild tangent believing that the Greeks invented Every Good Idea to my every lasting shame, but now, after having it pointed out to me, by you, I've been straightened out, and my life won't go astray. I really feel inspired. I mean, it's not often you get such a deep, and insightful lesson that completely changes your life. The sun is shining here, even though it's raining outside. Things are different, better, even my cat, Fuzzy, notices something is better and he doesn't know much of anything.

I now know, or know now (works both ways, as linguists will tell you) that the Greeks invented nearly Every Good Idea, but not EVERY good idea.

Thanks, Bob. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Way to be snide Thales. Good job.

Hey, listen, sometimes sarcasm is a required. You can't just say, "Hey, I didn't say that" ad infinitum, especially in obvious cases. Bob knows that I respect him highly, always have. When it comes to scientific things or a nice turn of phrase, he's especially worth the read, but I found it hard to type "No, I didn't say that" when it was so bleed'n obvious.

Or, let me try this the plain Jane way.

I did not say, nor do I believe that the Ancient Greeks came up with all great ideas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Greeks may not have come up with every good idea, but they discovered what it means for an idea to be good. Until then, the primitives were mixing good ideas with bad, with no way to discern between them. Sometimes, the good ideas outweighed the bad, and cultures advanced. Other times, the bad outweighed the good, and cultures collapsed. The Greeks showed us how to survive and how to flourish both as individuals and as a society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Greeks may not have come up with every good idea, but they discovered what it means for an idea to be good. Until then, the primitives were mixing good ideas with bad, with no way to discern between them. Sometimes, the good ideas outweighed the bad, and cultures advanced. Other times, the bad outweighed the good, and cultures collapsed. The Greeks showed us how to survive and how to flourish both as individuals and as a society.

Yup. The Spartans taught us to be brave fighters and keep Helots as slaves, killing a Helot now and then just to keep them in their place.

The Athenians taught us to keep 5/6 of the adult males in the population from exerting any legal or political power.

That is flourishing?

The Romans who were thugs and fascists lasted a hell of a lot longer than either the Athenians or the Spartans. If anyone did any flourishing (as a society) it was the Romans. And we still use their tropes publicly even to this day.

Bob Kolker

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Greeks may not have come up with every good idea, but they discovered what it means for an idea to be good. Until then, the primitives were mixing good ideas with bad, with no way to discern between them. Sometimes, the good ideas outweighed the bad, and cultures advanced. Other times, the bad outweighed the good, and cultures collapsed. The Greeks showed us how to survive and how to flourish both as individuals and as a society.

Eh.

Might I remind you that the Greek civilizations itself collapsed?

In any case by your rationale that would make China the culture with by far the most good ideas, since they have lasted the longest out of everyone and advanced all the way into the modern age (and still going strong). Therefore if you judge a civilization by how many good ideas they've come up with, then the answer to what civilization is the greatest seems pretty clear.

To me the single greatest strength that China has is the fact that they are completely and utterly grounded in secular reality. Every single time a foreign power invades China, the Chinese simply absorbs their strengths and internalize it without losing their cultural identity. Just look at the speed with which they transformed from a communist state into a world economic powerhouse to get an idea of what they do.

Then there is also the fact that the Chinese have long held intellectuals and men of learning as the most important of men in a society. Teachers of philosophy were honored and held in esteem by commoners and the emperor alike. To the Chinese, philosophy was not a esoteric or marginalized liberal art but a necessity for a functional society. Chinese public officials (outside of those with hereditary titles) are chosen through official tests designed to gauge their philosophical knowledge and its applications to reality. Most of the revered figures and heros throughout Chinese history were not conquerers or mystics, but rather (to borrow Western archetypes) philosopher kings, warrior poets, and great intellectuals.

This strict secular adherence and implicit trust of the human mind also resulted in the Chinese being some of the greatest practitioners of capitalism if you look at history as a whole. Chinese merchants dominated virtually all the economies in Asia for the majority of its existence, and even opening up the silk road for trading into the West.

Now admittedly, the most dominant philosophy of China historically was Confucianism, which is obviously riddled with flaws and was not built from the ground up with rational fundamental principles. If the question here was what ancient civilization developed the better philosophy, then I would obviously choose the Greeks. But nonetheless China has showed clearly that the rigorous study and application of a flawed philosophy is already enough to build a civilization that stands the test of time. It is as you said, clearly the Chinese culture had far more good ideas than they had bad (ie. the correct values), or they could never have lasted this long. I can only imagine what the Chinese will be capable of when they combine their openness to new ideas with their traditional values regarding intellect and philosophy now that they have opened their door to the West.

So yes, the Greeks systemized thought and slapped a name on it, but many, many others were practicing the "good ideas" on their own before, during, and after the Greeks (independent from Greek philosophical influences or otherwise, and probably would have continued to do so whether the Greeks even existed or not). If we truly believe that man is rational, there will always be capable, rational men that move those around them towards the right direction. Like I said earlier, if the man that discovered fire hadn't, someone else would have done so sooner or later (probably sooner, if the need was great enough). We're rational beings, and that's what rational beings do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it actually true that China has had one long, continuous culture throughout its history? I find this somewhat hard to believe, and suspect revisionism is at work if someone claims this.

I don't know if it is just the historians, or the people of the area, but simply calling the dominant culture "Chinese," even if it is conquered and falls, seems a bit like trying to cheat and claim credit for a thing which doesn't actually exist.

A bit like how the "Holy Roman Empire" claimed the mantle of the Roman Empire, but was really nothing of the sort. Only on a much larger, and longer, scale.

I invite any historians to confirm or debunk my suspicions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eh.

Might I remind you that the Greek civilizations itself collapsed?

In any case by your rationale that would make China the culture with by far the most good ideas, since they have lasted the longest out of everyone and advanced all the way into the modern age (and still going strong). Therefore if you judge a civilization by how many good ideas they've come up with, then the answer to what civilization is the greatest seems pretty clear.

To me the single greatest strength that China has is the fact that they are completely and utterly grounded in secular reality. Every single time a foreign power invades China, the Chinese simply absorbs their strengths and internalize it without losing their cultural identity. Just look at the speed with which they transformed from a communist state into a world economic powerhouse to get an idea of what they do.

Then there is also the fact that the Chinese have long held intellectuals and men of learning as the most important of men in a society. Teachers of philosophy were honored and held in esteem by commoners and the emperor alike. To the Chinese, philosophy was not a esoteric or marginalized liberal art but a necessity for a functional society. Chinese public officials (outside of those with hereditary titles) are chosen through official tests designed to gauge their philosophical knowledge and its applications to reality. Most of the revered figures and heros throughout Chinese history were not conquerers or mystics, but rather (to borrow Western archetypes) philosopher kings, warrior poets, and great intellectuals.

This strict secular adherence and implicit trust of the human mind also resulted in the Chinese being some of the greatest practitioners of capitalism if you look at history as a whole. Chinese merchants dominated virtually all the economies in Asia for the majority of its existence, and even opening up the silk road for trading into the West.

Now admittedly, the most dominant philosophy of China historically was Confucianism, which is obviously riddled with flaws and was not built from the ground up with rational fundamental principles. If the question here was what ancient civilization developed the better philosophy, then I would obviously choose the Greeks. But nonetheless China has showed clearly that the rigorous study and application of a flawed philosophy is already enough to build a civilization that stands the test of time. It is as you said, clearly the Chinese culture had far more good ideas than they had bad (ie. the correct values), or they could never have lasted this long. I can only imagine what the Chinese will be capable of when they combine their openness to new ideas with their traditional values regarding intellect and philosophy now that they have opened their door to the West.

So yes, the Greeks systemized thought and slapped a name on it, but many, many others were practicing the "good ideas" on their own before, during, and after the Greeks (independent from Greek philosophical influences or otherwise, and probably would have continued to do so whether the Greeks even existed or not). If we truly believe that man is rational, there will always be capable, rational men that move those around them towards the right direction. Like I said earlier, if the man that discovered fire hadn't, someone else would have done so sooner or later (probably sooner, if the need was great enough). We're rational beings, and that's what rational beings do.

The interested reader should see -The Genius of China- by Robert Temple and Joseph Needham for a brief historical review of Chinese accomplishment in technology and natural philosophy from ancient times to the near present.

Also see -Science and Civilization in China- by Joseph Needham. Note: this is -very expensive- and one should try to borrow it from a library. It is a multi-volume work (12, IIRC). Temple's book is a kind of precis of Needham's much longer opus.

The Chinese were living in large cities with running water toilets even before Rome and Greece. They flourished economically and intellectually with no input from Greek thinkers whatsoever. This amplifies the point of the quoted poster. Humans are just plain smart everywhere and everywhen. It is our nature. We are very smart, but not always very wise.

Bob Kolker

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I invite any historians to confirm or debunk my suspicions.
How can you "debunk" a suspicion?If you were actually interested, go to a public library a check out a book on Chinese history. Even a cursory look in wikipedia will give you your answer. Do not throw out random "suspicious" or accusations without even the laziest of research. Ignorance is not necessarily a fault, but you went well beyond asking a simple questions. The real question is, why is it so surprising to you that China was able to maintain a continuous culture?

By the way, in case you really were too lazy to a basic wiki search, here's the opening quote under "History of China":

The history of China is told in traditional historical records that refer as far back as the Three Sovereigns and Five Emperors about 5,000 years ago, supplemented by archaeological records dating to the 16th century BC. China is one of the world's oldest continuous civilizations.

Although frankly this is something that is taught in any basic high school world history text book (or at least mine).

Edited by Moebius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although frankly this is something that is taught in any basic high school world history text book (or at least mine).

The question is not whether the Chinese claim a continuous civilization. The question is whether, if they were to be held up to the same standards as Western nations, (such as Rome, Greece, Britain, or France) would the history books actually corroborate this claim?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question is not whether the Chinese claim a continuous civilization. The question is whether, if they were to be held up to the same standards as Western nations, (such as Rome, Greece, Britain, or France) would the history books actually corroborate this claim?
What?Like I said, my American high school World History textbook stated explicitly that it was so, and I'm pretty sure it wasn't written by a Chinese guy. And frankly I'm not sure what you mean by "the same standards" as the West. What standards are those exactly? I've already told you where can easily find the relevant information. But it seems like you would rather stand here and flaunt your ignorance. Like I said, if you were so intellectually lazy that you are unwilling to read a short, basic, and FREE wiki article, your opinions (and your questions, for that matter) are essentially worthless on this topic.
Oh, and this whole "well, if so and so didn't invent "x," then someone else would have" thing is complete nonsense of the highest order. The point is that someone else did NOT.
No. The point is it is nonsense to say that "if so and so didn't invent X, no one else would have and we'd all still be living in the stone ages". No one is claiming that the people who invented something shouldn't get credit for it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And frankly I'm not sure what you mean by "the same standards" as the West. What standards are those exactly?

Listen, mister calls-me-lazy: I'm not disputing historical facts, so there's nothing to look up! I'm saying that China just isn't the same kind of thing as western nations. So I'll thank you to stop your pointless insults!

There do exist people today in Greece and they are called Greeks but nobody pretends that they're the exact same civilization that existed thousands of years ago. They've conquered, fell, been conquered, changed rulers, changed the form of rule, etc etc. Britain was conquered by Normans, who became their ruling class, and nobody makes claims that this doesn't count and that it was actually the Normans who were "culturally conquered."

Your claim - that China has existed continually as a civilization - rests on you defining its civilization differently than you define that of western nations. Because China most certainly has been conquered, has changed names, has changed ruling dynasties, etc. Even the word and concept of "China" is a relatively modern addition. There was Xin China, Han China, three kingdoms China, Mongol China, Ming China, Manchu China, and many others.

I'm not saying that this is invalid, as there is a very real sense in which "China" has been continuous: as a cultural entity, and - for a much smaller amount of time - the part of the state which is the civil service. But what is invalid is to compare it directly to western nations on the basis of longevity. It is too different.

That is my point.

The point is it is nonsense to say that "if so and so didn't invent X, no one else would have and we'd all still be living in the stone ages". No one is claiming that the people who invented something shouldn't get credit for it.

Well, good. But then it's completely pointless to speculate at all about who would or would not invent what. We can only say who did invent what. Which once again leaves us with the fact: China did not invent a reason-based philosophy.

Furthermore:

1) Longest-lasting does not equal best ideas. Longest-lasting primitivism is, if anything, an indictment. Although, again, we have the problem of how to define "China."

2) China did not advance to the modern age - they were advanced to it, at gunpoint, by the West.

3) You cannot claim Modern China's "achievements" under the banner of ancient China.

4) Modern China's "achievements" are not so great. They are hardly a "powerhouse;" they have billions upon billions of people and their GDP is below even the sick old man that is the EU.

5) Furthermore, Modern China is still a hostile freaking communist dictatorship (and since you're from the ROC I can't fathom why you're claiming otherwise!) that is a threat to the free world. Its "achievement" is that it makes war - cold and otherwise - on us to this day. That US leadership of the last century has been too spineless and altruistic to crush this threat is not an achievement of the PRC; it is the shame of the USA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Listen, mister calls-me-lazy: I'm not disputing historical facts, so there's nothing to look up! I'm saying that China just isn't the same kind of thing as western nations. So I'll thank you to stop your pointless insults!

Listen. You asked a question, and I told you where you can find the answer. Then you asked the same "question" again. If you have an opinion, then just go ahead and say it. Don't frame your accusations behind thinly disguised "suspicions" or questions, then ask other people to "debunk" it.

Your claim - that China has existed continually as a civilization - rests on you defining its civilization differently than you define that of western nations. Because China most certainly has been conquered, has changed names, has changed ruling dynasties, etc. Even the word and concept of "China" is a relatively modern addition. There was Xin China, Han China, three kingdoms China, Mongol China, Ming China, Manchu China, and many others.

I'm not saying that this is invalid, as there is a very real sense in which "China" has been continuous: as a cultural entity, and - for a much smaller amount of time - the part of the state which is the civil service. But what is invalid is to compare it directly to western nations on the basis of longevity. It is too different.

It's not "my claim" that China is the longest continuous civilization on Earth. It's an accepted fact among historians. But let me get this straight -- so DO YOU or DO YOU NOT consider China a continuous civilization?

Now it is true that there has been dynastic changes. But they are in essence a series of civil wars. In virtually all cases, it is the Chinese fighting other Chinese for the right to rule. The dynasties were in essence a political change, but there is no change in its cultural identity. Now there are two exceptions -- the Mongol rule, which lasted for about 90 years, and the Manchurian rule, which lasted for about two centuries. In both cases, an extremely small minority of invader (in terms of numbers) moved into China, then proceeded to adopt Chinese cultures and customs, proclaiming themselves the king of China, set their government up as Chinese institutions, and are rapidly assimilated within one or two generations. The identity of China remained unchanged, the culture of China remained unchanged, the language of China remained unchanged, the title of the Chinese empire remained unchanged, and the people of China were not displaced. So no matter how you look at it, the civilization and the culture remained intact for all intents and purposes. That is, unless you for some reason consider a country a completely different civilization whenever a coup happens.

Now compare this to say, the Egyptians (I'm talking the original Egyptians, not the people that occupy Egypt today) or the Romans. When their empires collapsed, it was gone -- both in title and in reality. Their people were dispersed, their culture was scattered or suppressed, and their language (both written and oral) disappeared. The Greeks on the other hand is somewhere in between -- their territories were conquered by the Romans, whose culture was in turn conquered by the Greeks (not unlike the Chinese). After the fall of the Roman empire, Greece once again became a major power during the middle ages, until they became a part of the Byzantine Empire (at which point their culture became essentially a Christian one), then part of the Ottoman Empire (ruled by the Ottomans). During this time there were also several Greek migrations where their population was dispersed. So I would hardly call them a continuous civilization, since their were ruled by other, stronger civilizations for long periods, dispersed on and off, and ended up with a Christianity based culture far removed from the Classical Greek culture.

So that's my personal reasoning why the Greeks civilization should not be considered a continuous one. Now, instead of saying "oh well they are just too different to compare", why don't you use your reasoning and think of a more concrete, objective reason why you object to these comparisons?

Well, good. But then it's completely pointless to speculate at all about who would or would not invent what. We can only say who did invent what. Which once again leaves us with the fact: China did not invent a reason-based philosophy.

Uh huh. And I never disagreed with this point. So?

1) Longest-lasting does not equal best ideas. Longest-lasting primitivism is, if anything, an indictment. Although, again, we have the problem of how to define "China."

Well alright. So if you don't consider a country that has called itself China, spoke and wrote Chinese, had the same culture and tradition continuously for more or less 5,000 years regardless who the emperor is "China", how would YOU define "China"?

Because as far as I can tell, you stand alone as someone that has this "problem" regarding definition.

2) China did not advance to the modern age - they were advanced to it, at gunpoint, by the West.

Wait, but they DID advance into the modern age, right? I never disputed or even brought up the means with which they did it. That statement is as irrelevant as saying "oh well the Europeans forced each other into the modern age at gun point".

3) You cannot claim Modern China's "achievements" under the banner of ancient China.

Why not? They are continuous. But we don't have to, if for whatever unknown reason it really bothers you.

3) You cannot claim Modern China's "achievements" under the banner of ancient China.

4) Modern China's "achievements" are not so great. They are hardly a "powerhouse;" they have billions upon billions of people and their GDP is below even the sick old man that is the EU.

5) Furthermore, Modern China is still a hostile freaking communist dictatorship (and since you're from the ROC I can't fathom why you're claiming otherwise!) that is a threat to the free world. Its "achievement" is that it makes war - cold and otherwise - on us to this day. That US leadership of the last century has been too spineless and altruistic to crush this threat is not an achievement of the PRC; it is the shame of the USA.

4) Modern China's "achievements" are not so great. They are hardly a "powerhouse;" they have billions upon billions of people and their GDP is below even the sick old man that is the EU.

Yes their GDP is low on a per capita basis. Is that the only way you know how to measure economic, military, and political power? Because there are many reasons why that is flawed, and perhaps you can think of a few yourself. I don't really want to get into a discussion on the definition of "power house", but suffice to say that by many projections, the Chinese economy will likely surpass or equal the United States within our life time. Goldman Sachs for instance projected that China will surpass the US economically as early as 2040. Of course this is far from a scientific fact, so in the meantime we will just wait and see. Personally I am okay with it either way.

And it's funny that you brought up the EU by the way, considering currently they seem to be having a stronger economy than the United States.

5) Furthermore, Modern China is still a hostile freaking communist dictatorship (and since you're from the ROC I can't fathom why you're claiming otherwise!) that is a threat to the free world. Its "achievement" is that it makes war - cold and otherwise - on us to this day. That US leadership of the last century has been too spineless and altruistic to crush this threat is not an achievement of the PRC; it is the shame of the USA.

Yeah I live in Taiwan. So what? I know what China is, and I judge it objectively and based on what I see in reality. For one thing, they are not a dictatorship, although they are a totalitarian state. For another, they are communist in name only, with a thriving capitalistic interior underneath. They are an extremely productive society that forms an integral and inseparable part of the global supply chain. And I would hardly call them hostile to the US -- compared to the US-Russia relationship during the cold war I'd even call them down right warm and fuzzy. Yes, they operate in their best interest and are not always cooperative with the United States, but then why should they be? If the United States really want to end this so-called "threat", our best course is to HELP THEM develop their economy and to inject our ideologies of freedom and capitalism further into their culture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But let me get this straight -- so DO YOU or DO YOU NOT consider China a continuous civilization?

I told you - there is a validity to that claim, but it was not one in the same sense that Western nations are considered.

Now compare this to say, the Egyptians (I'm talking the original Egyptians, not the people that occupy Egypt today) or the Romans. When their empires collapsed, it was gone -- both in title and in reality.

Now, for Egypt, you refer to when Islam conquered and gutted it? That was certainly a collapse.

With Rome, you have hundreds of years in which the language and culture continued onwards despite the fragmentation of the Roman state. Their culture did not collapse, it merely moved to different centers which evolved separately. Can you claim that the modern Italian language would not be what Romans would speak had Rome endured? If a culture is to be defined by such inessentials, then you could make the argument that Rome never collapsed.

Of course, it did collapse. But you can blame the Christians for that one.

Anyhow, can you claim that all of China has never gone through such periods? That there was always one, monolithic and unchanging cultural and political entity "China?" The thing is, no history book claims this. The better history books never even use the package-term "China." They are careful to enumerate which "China" they mean.

The Greeks on the other hand is somewhere in between -- their territories were conquered by the Romans, whose culture was in turn conquered by the Greeks (not unlike the Chinese). After the fall of the Roman empire, Greece once again became a major power during the middle ages, until they became a part of the Byzantine Empire (at which point their culture became essentially a Christian one), then part of the Ottoman Empire (ruled by the Ottomans).
(bold added)

I do not believe that is an accurate statement. The Greeks didn't become a part of the Byzantine Empire after the middle ages. This "Byzantine" thing is just another name for the Eastern Roman Empire, of which the Greeks were a continuous part from its beginning until its collapse.

And the change to a Christian culture was not the result of some "fall" or foreign invasion like in the destruction of Egypt. It was a cultural shift - a self-inflicted and self-generated change. It would be like saying that China was no longer China after the spread of Buddhism. The difference, of course, is that Christianity's effect was so destructive compared to Buddhism.

The problem with your claims is that they are not specific enough. You use the general term, "civilization." Well, define that term and stick to one definition. Do you mean the language? Religion? Political entity? A lack of population dispersion?

Now, instead of saying "oh well they are just too different to compare", why don't you use your reasoning and think of a more concrete, objective reason why you object to these comparisons?

This is inaccurate. I have given you several concrete reasons alreadyk, even before this post.

Uh huh. And I never disagreed with this point. So?

Oh, yes you did. Here:

If we truly believe that man is rational, there will always be capable, rational men that move those around them towards the right direction. Like I said earlier, if the man that discovered fire hadn't, someone else would have done so sooner or later (probably sooner, if the need was great enough). We're rational beings, and that's what rational beings do.

Here, you make the claim that all advancement is somehow historically inevitable - so long as the "need [is] great enough." That any achievement is interchangable and no big deal at all.

No.

Mankind's capacity for the stifling and oppression of rational thought is just as great as his capacity to create it. It is entirely possible for men to stagnate in a frozen culture across countless millennia, living on bare subsistence until the sun exhausts its nuclear fuel.

Well alright. So if you don't consider a country that has called itself China, spoke and wrote Chinese, had the same culture and tradition continuously for more or less 5,000 years regardless who the emperor is "China", how would YOU define "China"?

I wouldn't. Except very loosely. "China" in this usage refers not to a nation but to the collected peoples of that entire part of the world. They were at times (mostly) united under a single political body, and at other times not. They had a language, or to be more accurate a language family, which did by the way greatly change over time - at least as much as Latin changed to the modern Romance languages.

This loose association is actually more of a factor of primitivism than anything else - more akin to Europe's feudal system before the development of nation-states. I.e. before the nation of Germany developed, there were simply "German people" who shared the basics of language and culture. There was no "Germany" that can trace its existence back thousands of years. This is the sense in which there was a continuous "China."

Now, apart from this, China had a relatively stable administrative system that survived conquests and regime changes and civil wars - that's something. But a willingness to swap one dictator for another - or of the various dictators which conquered to not mess with the status quo - is not really something to be all that proud of.

What does this leave? Details like customs, food (?), dress, and the like? But then how is stagnation in these things a virtue?

Listen, the fact is that there is a thing which is "China" that did survive a long time and does continue on, in a certain sense, today. I don't think it's a good thing, this "China;" in fact it represents a primordial force of oppression that reaches out from the dark ages of mankind to strangle us.

But, whether you agree with that or not, the point here is that this thing that is "China" is not in any way directly comparable to Western civilizations. In fact, I think the whole idea of comparing civilizations is impossible and doomed to degenerate into rationalistic nonsense.

Wait, but they DID advance into the modern age, right? I never disputed or even brought up the means with which they did it. That statement is as irrelevant as saying "oh well the Europeans forced each other into the modern age at gun point".

No, they did not "advance" into the modern age. "Advance" implied that they achieved modernity through their own efforts.

Yes their GDP is low on a per capita basis. Is that the only way you know how to measure economic, military, and political power? Because there are many reasons why that is flawed, and perhaps you can think of a few yourself.

Actually, since the modern nation China is not the same thing as Ancient China, the discussion has gone so far off the rails that it's pointless.

Of course this is far from a scientific fact, so in the meantime we will just wait and see. Personally I am okay with it either way.

Considering that they are hell-bent on conquering and oppressing you and every other citizen of the ROC as one of their most immediate goals in their ambitions for world domination, I really have to wonder why you are "okay" with it.

For another, they are communist in name only, with a thriving capitalistic interior underneath.

That's a dangerous mistake. There is a name for a system where property is privately owned in name, but everyone still answers absolutely to the total state. It's called Fascism.

And I would hardly call them hostile to the US -- compared to the US-Russia relationship during the cold war I'd even call them down right warm and fuzzy.

That's nothing but the product of their propaganda. They are currently engaged in a massive military buildup and arms race while trying to put on a diplomatic face and pretend that nothing is happening. (Partly because this is a preferred method of warfare for them and partly because US leadership seems to be so eager to accept such a ruse) The fact is that they have been providing tactical, diplomatic, and material support to many of America's enemies in a deliberate, generations-long attempt to undermine us and destroy our will to defend ourselves and our allies. If you watch the news closely, you will see a constant stream of espionage, hacker attacks, and development aimed specifically at neutralizing and destroying The US military. The whole thing is very, well, Chinese. No, they don't have a man who pounds a shoe on a podium and threatens to bury us. That's not their style. But make no mistake: they do mean to bury us.

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...