What Is The Greatest Ancient Civilization?

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

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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).

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. :slight_smile:

Way to be snide Thales. Good job.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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).

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?