The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersRussian Reaction Blog
Where Do the WEIRDos Come from?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Gargantuan (174 pages) paper with an staggering amount of data about family systems and kinship related institutions by Jonathan Schulz et al. (2018): The Origins of WEIRD Psychology (h/t @pseudoerasmus).

Our approach integrates three insights. The first, drawing on anthropology, reveals that the institutions built around kinship and marriage vary greatly across societies (21–23) and that much of this variation developed as societies scaled up in size and complexity, especially after the origins of food production 12,000 years ago (22, 24–29). In forging the tightly-knit communities needed to defend agricultural fields and pastures, cultural evolution gradually wove together social norms governing marriage, post-marital residence and ingroup identity (descent), leading to a diversity of kin-based institutions, including the organizational forms known as clans, lineages and kindreds (21, 27, 30). The second insight, based on work in psychology, is that people’s motivations, emotions, perceptions, thinking styles and other aspects of cognition are heavily influenced by the social norms, social networks, technologies and linguistic worlds they encounter while growing up (31–38). In particular, with intensive kin-based institutions, people’s psychological processes adapt to the collectivistic demands and the dense social networks that they interweave (39–43). Intensive kinship norms reward greater conformity, obedience, holistic/relational awareness and in-group loyalty but discourage individualism, independence and analytical thinking (41, 44). Since the sociality of intensive kinship is based on people’s interpersonal embeddedness, adapting to these institutions tends to reduce people’s inclinations towards impartiality, universal (non-relational) moral principles and impersonal trust, fairness and cooperation. Finally, based on historical evidence, the third insight suggests that the branch of Western Christianity that eventually evolved into the Roman Catholic Church—hereafter, ‘the Western Church’ or simply ‘the Church’—systematically undermined the intensive kin-based institutions of Europe during the Middle Ages (45–52). The Church’s marriage policies and prohibitions, which we will call the Marriage and Family Program (MFP), meant that by 1500 CE, and likely centuries earlier in some regions, Europe lacked strong kin-based institutions, and was instead dominated by relatively weak, independent and isolated nuclear or stem families (49–51, 53–56). This made people exposed to Western Christendom rather unlike nearly all other populations.

Integrating these insights, we propose that the spread of the Church, specifically through its transformation of kinship and marriage, was a key factor behind a cultural shift towards a WEIRDer psychology in Europe. This shift eventually fostered the creation of new formal institutions, including representative governments, individual rights, commercial law and impersonal markets (17, 57). This theory predicts that (1) societies with less intensive kin-based institutions should have a WEIRDer psychology and (2) historical exposure to the Church’s MFP should predict both less intensive kin-based institutions and, as a consequence, a WEIRDer psychology.

Anyhow, there is zero chance that I am going to read this paper closely now or anytime soon, so for now I am just going to highlight the things that caught my eye there.

map-world-kinship-institutions-index

map-world-western-church

map-world-cousin-marriage

map-world-polygamy

map-world-coresiding-families

map-world-lineage-organization

map-world-community-organization

All the correlations are as we would expect them to be.

family-systems-nepotism

Conclusion:

To begin to explain the psychological differences now documented around the globe, we have proposed a two-part theory. First, we hypothesize that, in adapting to the social worlds created by intensive kin-based institutions, human psychology shifts in ways that foster greater conformity, obedience and sensitivity to relational contexts but less individualism, analytic thinking and cooperation with strangers. Second, to account for part of the variation in kinship intensity, we hypothesize that Western Christianity, beginning around 500 CE, gradually implemented a set of policies about marriage and the family—the MFP—that was a critical contributor to the eventual dissolution of the intensive kin-based institutions of Europe. By 1500 CE, this left many regions of Western Europe dominated by independent, monogamous, nuclear families—a peculiar configuration called the European Marriage Pattern (54, 55, 97). This two-part theory implies that the Church, through the MFP, inadvertently contributed to what psychologists have termed WEIRD psychology.

We tested these hypotheses at three levels of analysis. Across countries, our analyses of 16 variables confirm that populations with less intensive kin-based institutions historically are psychologically WEIRDer today: they are more individualistic and independent but less nepotistic, conformist, obedient and holistically-oriented. Socially, populations with weaker kin-based institutions reveal less in-group loyalty, diminished moral particularism and greater trust, fairness and cooperation with strangers. Then, zooming in on Europe, by tracking the diffusion of the MFP from 550 to 1500 CE, we show that the longer a regional population was exposed to the Church, the higher their measures of individualism-independence and generalized trust and fairness and the lower their measure of conformity-obedience. Then, by tapping remnants of intensive kinship in Western Europe, we demonstrate that greater exposure to the Church is associated with less cousin marriage in the 20th century, which in turn is associated with stronger individualism, less conformity and greater impersonal prosociality. In Italy, we further demonstrate that higher rates of cousin marriage are associated with fewer voluntary blood donations (a public good). Lastly, by linking second-generation immigrants in Europe back to the places where their parents originated, we demonstrate that the influence of both intensive kinship and Church exposure can still be detected psychologically among the adult children of immigrants living in the same European countries.

Comments:

1. No, hbd*chick is not acknowledged, though she really should be in what appears to be the most comprehensive overview of this topic to date.

2. Do they produce a national index of kinship intensity/cousin marriage/etc. anywhere in the paper, or could one at least be easily constructed from the wealth of data they have accumulated? (E.g., something like what JayMan attempted to do, if not very rigorously). It would be good to test if kinship intensity, cousin marriage, family structure, and/or some general “inbreeding index” combining all of these, has any independent effects (in addition to IQ/oil windfalls/Communist legacy) on current levels of GDP per capita/general socioeconomic success.

 
Hide 305 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Nznz says: • Website

    How is this a good thing, considering that this is where the origin of liberalism and LGBTQIATZ movement comes from? I mean a more conformist and conservative West would have been a lot more ruthless against the rise of liberalism in the 1960s.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    I'm pretty sure that the LGBTQIATZ movement would be considered an anti WEIRD reaction, commonly referred to as 'postchristianity'.
    , @Jaakko Raipala
    I don't know where this idea that the West isn't "conformist" comes from. WEIRDos are ultraconformists, you will get ostracized for even the slightest disagreement from the line that they've learned from the TV, their professors and the megacorporations.

    Sure, we are constantly told that being a part of the zealous mob is a form of "rebellion" and an expression of "individualism", but that's ridiculous. The "rebellious individualism" that's promoted by Western institutions is rejecting your parents and ancestry and it's not very different at all from Soviet "hero" stories like Pavel Morozov that were supposed to remind people that loyalty to the Soviet institutions is more virtuous than loyalty to kin.

    As for why resistance failed in the 1960s, my grandfather was a right-wing politician of a pretty militant wing from the 1950s to the 1970s so exactly during the time of failure. They focused their efforts continuing the conspiracy of officers who made plans for guerrilla war against Soviet occupation at the end of the war, hiding weapons around the country and re-founding right-wing militias from the Civil War. Their fathers had taken back the country in 1918 with some ruthless rwds action so of course they thought they would do the same thing once the communists tried their coup again.

    I inherited a bunch of rusted assault rifles and a pozzed up country not because the right-wing of my grandfathers generation was unwilling to be ruthless but because they prepared to fight the last war again and the left didn't show up. They failed to foresee the change of strategies by the left away from armed revolution. A big part of why the Western right-wing failed is that they focused too much on the Soviet threat and didn't even notice that the left was abandoning the USSR as a model.
    , @Jason Liu
    It's not a good thing. It shows that liberalism has its roots in European whiteness.
    , @Daniel Chieh
    I think that AK has commented before about the difficulty of societal management being something akin to "flying is like falling without hitting the ground." I don't think its very meaningful to judge something because its destination, for example, is POZ; by that same logic in extremis, life is the origin of all death, so we have to eliminate all life to stop death.

    I'll tentatively posit that its a living system that thrives but eventually generates its own agents of destruction, akin to how living systems generate cancer cells. In that sense, the most dangerous aspect of this is the unified noosphere, so that any cancerous(yet effective) memes have unstoppable transmission and burn out the entire species rather than a localized area.
    , @notanon

    How is this a good thing
     
    maximizes synergy, encourages innovation, puts men on the moon etc

    this is where the origin of liberalism
     
    yes, oops
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Mr. Hack says:
    @Nznz
    How is this a good thing, considering that this is where the origin of liberalism and LGBTQIATZ movement comes from? I mean a more conformist and conservative West would have been a lot more ruthless against the rise of liberalism in the 1960s.

    I’m pretty sure that the LGBTQIATZ movement would be considered an anti WEIRD reaction, commonly referred to as ‘postchristianity’.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Beckow

    ...commonly referred to as ‘postchristianity’
     
    There are a few other terms that come to mind, but I will refrain. Current 'progressive liberalism' is a metastised version of a few decent ideas going back to the 18th century. At this point it literally looks like a massive mental disorder. (Damn you, Voltaire!)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. Not convinced. This all is a quasi-science of retro-history, similar to Hegelian & Marxist fabulations. Western culture begins in ancient Greece ca. 800-600 B.C. & all other ups & downs of European, and later global civilization, are not comparable to that quantum leap in human history- which remains completely inexplicable.

    In other words, nice try, but without explanatory or predictive power.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry
    In terms of literature, Ancient Greece on some dimensions (or genres) reached a new highest level in history (plays by Aristophanes are almost as sophisticated as any satire produced in 19th century).

    Ancient Greek sculpture also reaches a new highest level of sculpture in world history.

    Writing of history is also reaching its highest level, by any standards, with Thucydides.

    But in terms of other kind of building achievements, Ancient Egypt was far ahead.

    And in terms of philosophy - Ancient India may have had an equal level around the same era.

    , @anonymous coward

    Western culture begins in ancient Greece ca. 800-600 B.C.
     
    Not true. Everything we know about ancient Greece is post-hoc inventions and rationalizations, invented 2000 years after. There's more Enlightenment and Voltaire in 'ancient Greece' than actual Greece.
    , @Anatoly Karlin
    I am not a particularly strong supporter of this theory, as both hbd*chick and Jayman would confirm.

    I think literacy, IQ, and climate/agriculture explain almost everything. E.g., for Greece: http://www.unz.com/akarlin/ancient-greeks-not-geniuses/

    However, the phenomena they describe are real, and certainly cannot have hindered Europe's success. This must have especially contributed favorably to the Dutch developing most of the institutions of modern capitalism during the 16-17th centuries.
    , @notanon

    begins in ancient Greece ca. 800-600 B.C
     
    Cleisthenes' reforms may have had the same effect on Athens as the Church ban on cousin marriage

    (in the interval between the break up of the old clan structure and before the new clan structure had solidified)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. Anonymous[115] • Disclaimer says:

    Dude! What’s up with Finland? The charts above almost make them seem non-white, even though they’re the whitest people I know.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    http://cdn.ebin.pw/src/purest%20white%20genes.jpg

    But seriously, I don't know. There are quite a lot of results there that don't fit the old models very well.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. @Anonymous
    Dude! What's up with Finland? The charts above almost make them seem non-white, even though they're the whitest people I know.

    But seriously, I don’t know. There are quite a lot of results there that don’t fit the old models very well.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. @Nznz
    How is this a good thing, considering that this is where the origin of liberalism and LGBTQIATZ movement comes from? I mean a more conformist and conservative West would have been a lot more ruthless against the rise of liberalism in the 1960s.

    I don’t know where this idea that the West isn’t “conformist” comes from. WEIRDos are ultraconformists, you will get ostracized for even the slightest disagreement from the line that they’ve learned from the TV, their professors and the megacorporations.

    Sure, we are constantly told that being a part of the zealous mob is a form of “rebellion” and an expression of “individualism”, but that’s ridiculous. The “rebellious individualism” that’s promoted by Western institutions is rejecting your parents and ancestry and it’s not very different at all from Soviet “hero” stories like Pavel Morozov that were supposed to remind people that loyalty to the Soviet institutions is more virtuous than loyalty to kin.

    As for why resistance failed in the 1960s, my grandfather was a right-wing politician of a pretty militant wing from the 1950s to the 1970s so exactly during the time of failure. They focused their efforts continuing the conspiracy of officers who made plans for guerrilla war against Soviet occupation at the end of the war, hiding weapons around the country and re-founding right-wing militias from the Civil War. Their fathers had taken back the country in 1918 with some ruthless rwds action so of course they thought they would do the same thing once the communists tried their coup again.

    I inherited a bunch of rusted assault rifles and a pozzed up country not because the right-wing of my grandfathers generation was unwilling to be ruthless but because they prepared to fight the last war again and the left didn’t show up. They failed to foresee the change of strategies by the left away from armed revolution. A big part of why the Western right-wing failed is that they focused too much on the Soviet threat and didn’t even notice that the left was abandoning the USSR as a model.

    Read More
    • Agree: German_reader
    • Replies: @Beckow

    ...because they prepared to fight the last war again and the left didn’t show up...
     
    Left has had the initiative since roughly 18th century, they choose what we fight about, where, and how. That is a huge disadvantage for the more traditionally minded people who get outflanked. Traditionalism leads to a lack of initiative. The nutty progressives also by definition dominate modern culture that is all about what my grandpa called 'novelties'. It appeals to teenagers and it goes downhill from there.

    How about that kin-based cluster in Finland? Amazing, but it doesn't surprise me. In that cold weather a cute cousin looks pretty good. Or maybe they just researched the Samis. In any case, you have that going for you...
    , @songbird

    I don’t know where this idea that the West isn’t “conformist” comes from.
     
    I'd say that there are some pretty big differences in the school environment: dress code: East vs. West, but I'm not disagreeing with you. People who are freakish in appearance - have really weird hair (long for a guy, dyed bright colors, dreadlocks, afros...) or large-scale body modifications seem to just be signaling their excessive willingness to embrace the narrative.

    I really think there is something to signaling being fairly central to the Left. I recently made the unscientific observation that Leftist bumper stickers seem to take up more space than Rightist ones. Meaning, see a car with a Right one, and you will see a car with two or more Left ones.
    , @anonymous coward
    The Soviet Communist Party was far to the right of the American Republicans.

    Equating leftism with 'communism' was leftism's most successful trick.
    , @notanon

    I don’t know where this idea that the West isn’t “conformist” comes from.
     
    right - it's more a question of where their conformism is decided - non-WEIRD populations look locally, clan, familial, traditional while WEIRD populations (cos they cooperate on a larger scale) look for a larger scale and more "universal" code decided by a dominant moral authority (which is currently and to our great detriment TV, particularly US TV).
    , @Joe Schmoe



    "I don’t know where this idea that the West isn’t “conformist” comes from."
     
    Isaac Newton conformist? Socrates conformist? Voltaire conformist? Elizabeth I of England conformist? Martin Luther conformist?

    Sure lots of folks in the west are conformist. That is not remarkable. It is remarkable that there are far more significant non-conformers than in other places. These people are not criminals. They are not aberrations. They are features not bugs. So, yes, the west is different in that it is less conforming that others. That is not the same as lacking conformity in general. The difference is the rate. And yes, there are more independent thinkers in the west than elsewhere and it has been so for a long time.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. Jason Liu says:
    @Nznz
    How is this a good thing, considering that this is where the origin of liberalism and LGBTQIATZ movement comes from? I mean a more conformist and conservative West would have been a lot more ruthless against the rise of liberalism in the 1960s.

    It’s not a good thing. It shows that liberalism has its roots in European whiteness.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. Beckow says:
    @Jaakko Raipala
    I don't know where this idea that the West isn't "conformist" comes from. WEIRDos are ultraconformists, you will get ostracized for even the slightest disagreement from the line that they've learned from the TV, their professors and the megacorporations.

    Sure, we are constantly told that being a part of the zealous mob is a form of "rebellion" and an expression of "individualism", but that's ridiculous. The "rebellious individualism" that's promoted by Western institutions is rejecting your parents and ancestry and it's not very different at all from Soviet "hero" stories like Pavel Morozov that were supposed to remind people that loyalty to the Soviet institutions is more virtuous than loyalty to kin.

    As for why resistance failed in the 1960s, my grandfather was a right-wing politician of a pretty militant wing from the 1950s to the 1970s so exactly during the time of failure. They focused their efforts continuing the conspiracy of officers who made plans for guerrilla war against Soviet occupation at the end of the war, hiding weapons around the country and re-founding right-wing militias from the Civil War. Their fathers had taken back the country in 1918 with some ruthless rwds action so of course they thought they would do the same thing once the communists tried their coup again.

    I inherited a bunch of rusted assault rifles and a pozzed up country not because the right-wing of my grandfathers generation was unwilling to be ruthless but because they prepared to fight the last war again and the left didn't show up. They failed to foresee the change of strategies by the left away from armed revolution. A big part of why the Western right-wing failed is that they focused too much on the Soviet threat and didn't even notice that the left was abandoning the USSR as a model.

    …because they prepared to fight the last war again and the left didn’t show up…

    Left has had the initiative since roughly 18th century, they choose what we fight about, where, and how. That is a huge disadvantage for the more traditionally minded people who get outflanked. Traditionalism leads to a lack of initiative. The nutty progressives also by definition dominate modern culture that is all about what my grandpa called ‘novelties‘. It appeals to teenagers and it goes downhill from there.

    How about that kin-based cluster in Finland? Amazing, but it doesn’t surprise me. In that cold weather a cute cousin looks pretty good. Or maybe they just researched the Samis. In any case, you have that going for you…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    You might be onto something with the Saamis. The data in those graphics comes from Murdock's Ethnographic Atlas.

    https://archive.org/details/GeorgeP.MurdockEthnographicAtlasUniversityOfPittsburghPress1967

    The problem? There are no Finns or Estonians or Karelians or any other closely related Balto-Finnic peoples in the Atlas, at least not in the 1967 version they refer to. Of the Finno-Ugric group besides Hungarians there are Cheremis (an Uralic people with a very distant relation, think English-Ossetian distant) and you guessed it, Saamis, Konkama Lapps of Sweden to be precise. There is indeed a very real chance that "Finland" in those charts in fact is based on habits of some small Saami or Cheremis community, would be great if someone can get the authors to double check before it comes up in peer review.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. Beckow says:
    @Mr. Hack
    I'm pretty sure that the LGBTQIATZ movement would be considered an anti WEIRD reaction, commonly referred to as 'postchristianity'.

    …commonly referred to as ‘postchristianity’

    There are a few other terms that come to mind, but I will refrain. Current ‘progressive liberalism‘ is a metastised version of a few decent ideas going back to the 18th century. At this point it literally looks like a massive mental disorder. (Damn you, Voltaire!)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. @Nznz
    How is this a good thing, considering that this is where the origin of liberalism and LGBTQIATZ movement comes from? I mean a more conformist and conservative West would have been a lot more ruthless against the rise of liberalism in the 1960s.

    I think that AK has commented before about the difficulty of societal management being something akin to “flying is like falling without hitting the ground.” I don’t think its very meaningful to judge something because its destination, for example, is POZ; by that same logic in extremis, life is the origin of all death, so we have to eliminate all life to stop death.

    I’ll tentatively posit that its a living system that thrives but eventually generates its own agents of destruction, akin to how living systems generate cancer cells. In that sense, the most dangerous aspect of this is the unified noosphere, so that any cancerous(yet effective) memes have unstoppable transmission and burn out the entire species rather than a localized area.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JL
    How can logic be in extremis? It either is, or it isn't.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. utu says:

    The wisdom of Catholic Church

    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04264a.htm
    Motives of impediment

    The Church was prompted by various reasons first to recognize the prohibitive legislation of the Roman State and then to extend the impediment of consanguinity beyond the limits of the civil legislation. The welfare of the social order, according to St. Augustine (City of God XV.16) and St. Thomas (Suppl. Q. liii, a. 3), demanded the widest possible extension of friendship and love among all humankind, to which desirable aim the intermarriage of close blood-relations was opposed; this was especially true in the first half of the Middle Ages, when the best interests of society required the unification of the numerous tribes and peoples which had settled on the soil of the Roman Empire. By overthrowing the barriers between inimical families and races, ruinous internecine warfare was diminished and greater peace and harmony secured among the newly-converted Christians. In the moral order the prohibition of marriage between near relations served as a barrier against early corruption among young persons of either sex brought habitually into close intimacy with one another; it tended also to strengthen the natural feeling of respect for closely related persons (St. Thomas, II-II.154.9; St. Augustine, City of God XV.10).

    Gregory I (590-604), if the letter in question be truly his, granted to the newly converted Anglo-Saxons restriction of the impediment to the fourth degree of consanguinity (c. 20, C. 35, qq. 2, 3); Paul III restricted it to the second degree for American Indians (Zitelli, Apparat. Jur. Eccl., 405), and also for natives of the Philippines. Benedict XIV (Letter “Æstas Anni”, 11 Oct., 1757) states that the Roman pontiffs have never granted dispensation from the first degree of collateral consanguinity (brothers and sisters). For converted infidels it is recognized that the Church does not insist upon annulment of marriages beyond this first degree of consanguinity.

    Read More
    • Replies: @songbird

    For converted infidels it is recognized that the Church does not insist upon annulment of marriages beyond this first degree of consanguinity.
     
    I believe there actually was a brother-sister marriage among the Inca which was recognized by the Church for diplomatic reasons.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. So Schulz is saying incest is best?

    Note that those maps are inverse maps of wealth and development.

    To quote another Schulz,

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  13. Anonymous[276] • Disclaimer says:

    1. No, hbd*chick is not acknowledged, though she really should be in what appears to be the most comprehensive overview of this topic to date.

    This paper seems to discuss the cultural evolution of the Church and Western institutions, which is an old idea that predates hbd chick.

    What hbd chick does is reiterate this idea while positing that genetic evolution or causation took place in place of or alongside the cultural evolution. The genetic evolution is not really explained or adequately hypothesized, but rather just posited from an assumption of sociobiological materialism or determinism.

    Read More
    • Agree: utu
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  14. neutral says:

    even though they’re the whitest people I know

    Being white is not simply about how fair ones skin is, the whitest people are the Aryans, which the Finns are not.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  15. songbird says:
    @utu
    The wisdom of Catholic Church

    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04264a.htm
    Motives of impediment

    The Church was prompted by various reasons first to recognize the prohibitive legislation of the Roman State and then to extend the impediment of consanguinity beyond the limits of the civil legislation. The welfare of the social order, according to St. Augustine (City of God XV.16) and St. Thomas (Suppl. Q. liii, a. 3), demanded the widest possible extension of friendship and love among all humankind, to which desirable aim the intermarriage of close blood-relations was opposed; this was especially true in the first half of the Middle Ages, when the best interests of society required the unification of the numerous tribes and peoples which had settled on the soil of the Roman Empire. By overthrowing the barriers between inimical families and races, ruinous internecine warfare was diminished and greater peace and harmony secured among the newly-converted Christians. In the moral order the prohibition of marriage between near relations served as a barrier against early corruption among young persons of either sex brought habitually into close intimacy with one another; it tended also to strengthen the natural feeling of respect for closely related persons (St. Thomas, II-II.154.9; St. Augustine, City of God XV.10).
     

    Gregory I (590-604), if the letter in question be truly his, granted to the newly converted Anglo-Saxons restriction of the impediment to the fourth degree of consanguinity (c. 20, C. 35, qq. 2, 3); Paul III restricted it to the second degree for American Indians (Zitelli, Apparat. Jur. Eccl., 405), and also for natives of the Philippines. Benedict XIV (Letter "Æstas Anni", 11 Oct., 1757) states that the Roman pontiffs have never granted dispensation from the first degree of collateral consanguinity (brothers and sisters). For converted infidels it is recognized that the Church does not insist upon annulment of marriages beyond this first degree of consanguinity.
     

    For converted infidels it is recognized that the Church does not insist upon annulment of marriages beyond this first degree of consanguinity.

    I believe there actually was a brother-sister marriage among the Inca which was recognized by the Church for diplomatic reasons.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. songbird says:
    @Jaakko Raipala
    I don't know where this idea that the West isn't "conformist" comes from. WEIRDos are ultraconformists, you will get ostracized for even the slightest disagreement from the line that they've learned from the TV, their professors and the megacorporations.

    Sure, we are constantly told that being a part of the zealous mob is a form of "rebellion" and an expression of "individualism", but that's ridiculous. The "rebellious individualism" that's promoted by Western institutions is rejecting your parents and ancestry and it's not very different at all from Soviet "hero" stories like Pavel Morozov that were supposed to remind people that loyalty to the Soviet institutions is more virtuous than loyalty to kin.

    As for why resistance failed in the 1960s, my grandfather was a right-wing politician of a pretty militant wing from the 1950s to the 1970s so exactly during the time of failure. They focused their efforts continuing the conspiracy of officers who made plans for guerrilla war against Soviet occupation at the end of the war, hiding weapons around the country and re-founding right-wing militias from the Civil War. Their fathers had taken back the country in 1918 with some ruthless rwds action so of course they thought they would do the same thing once the communists tried their coup again.

    I inherited a bunch of rusted assault rifles and a pozzed up country not because the right-wing of my grandfathers generation was unwilling to be ruthless but because they prepared to fight the last war again and the left didn't show up. They failed to foresee the change of strategies by the left away from armed revolution. A big part of why the Western right-wing failed is that they focused too much on the Soviet threat and didn't even notice that the left was abandoning the USSR as a model.

    I don’t know where this idea that the West isn’t “conformist” comes from.

    I’d say that there are some pretty big differences in the school environment: dress code: East vs. West, but I’m not disagreeing with you. People who are freakish in appearance – have really weird hair (long for a guy, dyed bright colors, dreadlocks, afros…) or large-scale body modifications seem to just be signaling their excessive willingness to embrace the narrative.

    I really think there is something to signaling being fairly central to the Left. I recently made the unscientific observation that Leftist bumper stickers seem to take up more space than Rightist ones. Meaning, see a car with a Right one, and you will see a car with two or more Left ones.

    Read More
    • Replies: @notanon

    I really think there is something to signaling being fairly central to the Left.
     
    i think virtue-signalling is a side effect of having a more universalist morality - in familial morality virtue = how closely related you are, in a WEIRD society you have to signal your conformity to the dominant morality (and of course sociopaths have to signal the hardest to disguise themselves).

    what people signal is decided by the dominant moral authority hence the similarity in behavior but difference in detail between puritan and SJW.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. Nznz says: • Website

    Is there a genetic explanation for why Thailand or the Philippines has such a huge number or effeminate males and trannies? Certainly seems a lot larger than 0.6 percent of the male population. And why would the corporate world back the LGBT issue so much since LGBT new up such a miniscule amount of the population, and hence are just a rounding error in the profit of corporations, i mean i can understand why corporations may back mass immigration or civil rights from a profit standpoint considering the large percentage of minority consumer, but why put financial backing behind trannies, which makr about half of one percent of the population?

    Read More
    • Replies: @songbird
    In terms of genetics, in theory, gayness is very maladaptive. Basically, gays would only have to have slightly less TFR and gay genes would be eliminated.

    I'd agree that gayness seems to vary by population, which is difficult to square with the theory of it not being genetic.

    The incredible influence of gays is a puzzle. I used to think that they had time to be more political because of lack of family - so they could both rise to positions and spend more time advancing their agenda. Also, a predilection for the arts and thus for setting the culture. But I think it just has high signaling value. Look at the rainbow flag - so many colors! Many gays speak in a lisp - another signal.

    Some say that it was AIDS - created sympathy for an unnatural target. But I think it is independent of AIDS. Mostly the signaling value alone - aberration, paired with a population that is good at being its own advocates, because it harnesses the sex drive at its core identity, which isn't really true of heterosexuals.
    , @notanon

    Is there a genetic explanation for why Thailand or the Philippines has such a huge number or effeminate males and trannies?
     
    if one explanation or part explanation is hormone imbalance in the womb then maybe those countries have a lot of natural estrogens somewhere in their diet

    And why would the corporate world back the LGBT issue so much
     
    cheap labor

    (if they only adopted the diversity part of SJW ideology it would be obvious they were doing it for cheap labor so they have to adopt the whole package)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. songbird says:
    @Nznz
    Is there a genetic explanation for why Thailand or the Philippines has such a huge number or effeminate males and trannies? Certainly seems a lot larger than 0.6 percent of the male population. And why would the corporate world back the LGBT issue so much since LGBT new up such a miniscule amount of the population, and hence are just a rounding error in the profit of corporations, i mean i can understand why corporations may back mass immigration or civil rights from a profit standpoint considering the large percentage of minority consumer, but why put financial backing behind trannies, which makr about half of one percent of the population?

    In terms of genetics, in theory, gayness is very maladaptive. Basically, gays would only have to have slightly less TFR and gay genes would be eliminated.

    I’d agree that gayness seems to vary by population, which is difficult to square with the theory of it not being genetic.

    The incredible influence of gays is a puzzle. I used to think that they had time to be more political because of lack of family – so they could both rise to positions and spend more time advancing their agenda. Also, a predilection for the arts and thus for setting the culture. But I think it just has high signaling value. Look at the rainbow flag – so many colors! Many gays speak in a lisp – another signal.

    Some say that it was AIDS – created sympathy for an unnatural target. But I think it is independent of AIDS. Mostly the signaling value alone – aberration, paired with a population that is good at being its own advocates, because it harnesses the sex drive at its core identity, which isn’t really true of heterosexuals.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosie

    The incredible influence of gays is a puzzle. I used to think that they had time to be more political because of lack of family – so they could both rise to positions and spend more time advancing their agenda.
     
    It seems to me that an advantage in time available for career, although small on the individual level, would add up in the aggregate, leading to a heavily gay elite. Then, you would also expect to see a network effect, as disproportionately successful gays begin to support and promote each other, lead into an even gayer elite in the future, etc...
    , @Nznz
    Is there a genetic predisposition among gays for extraversion and generally pleasant and outgoing social traits?
    , @Nznz
    Do celibate homosexuals tend to have a different personality profile than other homosexuals?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. Dmitry says:
    @Bardon Kaldian
    Not convinced. This all is a quasi-science of retro-history, similar to Hegelian & Marxist fabulations. Western culture begins in ancient Greece ca. 800-600 B.C. & all other ups & downs of European, and later global civilization, are not comparable to that quantum leap in human history- which remains completely inexplicable.

    In other words, nice try, but without explanatory or predictive power.

    In terms of literature, Ancient Greece on some dimensions (or genres) reached a new highest level in history (plays by Aristophanes are almost as sophisticated as any satire produced in 19th century).

    Ancient Greek sculpture also reaches a new highest level of sculpture in world history.

    Writing of history is also reaching its highest level, by any standards, with Thucydides.

    But in terms of other kind of building achievements, Ancient Egypt was far ahead.

    And in terms of philosophy – Ancient India may have had an equal level around the same era.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    I disagree. Domes, vaults, and some types of arches are much more advanced technologies than heaps of stone, even big ones.

    Greeks invented logic by themselves. The rest of the world's philosophical achievements up to that point pale in comparison just relative to that.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. Rosie says:
    @songbird
    In terms of genetics, in theory, gayness is very maladaptive. Basically, gays would only have to have slightly less TFR and gay genes would be eliminated.

    I'd agree that gayness seems to vary by population, which is difficult to square with the theory of it not being genetic.

    The incredible influence of gays is a puzzle. I used to think that they had time to be more political because of lack of family - so they could both rise to positions and spend more time advancing their agenda. Also, a predilection for the arts and thus for setting the culture. But I think it just has high signaling value. Look at the rainbow flag - so many colors! Many gays speak in a lisp - another signal.

    Some say that it was AIDS - created sympathy for an unnatural target. But I think it is independent of AIDS. Mostly the signaling value alone - aberration, paired with a population that is good at being its own advocates, because it harnesses the sex drive at its core identity, which isn't really true of heterosexuals.

    The incredible influence of gays is a puzzle. I used to think that they had time to be more political because of lack of family – so they could both rise to positions and spend more time advancing their agenda.

    It seems to me that an advantage in time available for career, although small on the individual level, would add up in the aggregate, leading to a heavily gay elite. Then, you would also expect to see a network effect, as disproportionately successful gays begin to support and promote each other, lead into an even gayer elite in the future, etc…

    Read More
    • Replies: @for-the-record
    The influence of gays is perhaps similar to that of another relatively small group (which shall go unnamed) known for above-average intelligence and networking skills.

    With regard to intelligence, I assume the following results are still valid:

    Intelligence in Homosexuals, Transsexuals and Hypogonadotropic Eunuchoids

    Jan Raboch and I. Šípová, The Journal of Sex Research, Vol. 10, No. 2 (May, 1974), pp. 156-161

    Abstract

    Investigation of intellectual capacity by means of Raven's test was performed in groups of 17 non-feminine and 24 feminine homosexual patients, 24 genetically male transsexuals, 20 adult hypogonadotropic eunuchoids and 100 men from sterile marriages with normospermia in ejaculate. In 3 out of 4 pathological groups the IQ was higher than 110 in more than 60% of subjects; in the group of male transsexuals 50% of subjects exhibited an IQ above the average. Taking into account also the findings of other authors, we are putting forward a hypothesis that disorders in the supply of steroid hormones acting in the formative period of hypothalamus disturb, on one hand, the sexual development and, on the other hand, have a tendency to increase the mental level of these subjects.

    https://www.jstor.org/stable/3811285?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. Nznz says: • Website
    @songbird
    In terms of genetics, in theory, gayness is very maladaptive. Basically, gays would only have to have slightly less TFR and gay genes would be eliminated.

    I'd agree that gayness seems to vary by population, which is difficult to square with the theory of it not being genetic.

    The incredible influence of gays is a puzzle. I used to think that they had time to be more political because of lack of family - so they could both rise to positions and spend more time advancing their agenda. Also, a predilection for the arts and thus for setting the culture. But I think it just has high signaling value. Look at the rainbow flag - so many colors! Many gays speak in a lisp - another signal.

    Some say that it was AIDS - created sympathy for an unnatural target. But I think it is independent of AIDS. Mostly the signaling value alone - aberration, paired with a population that is good at being its own advocates, because it harnesses the sex drive at its core identity, which isn't really true of heterosexuals.

    Is there a genetic predisposition among gays for extraversion and generally pleasant and outgoing social traits?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    Not in my experience; a lot of them are clearly mentally unstable and act in ways fitting for that(including being pretty avoidant of others). They're just very clannish, so to speak and unusually heavily clustered in creative industries, where they show a lot of interest in. In a vaguely Damore way, I would say that gays aren't necessarily better at art, but they definitely show a lot more interest in it and naturally dominate it.

    I grew up as part of an artistic collective; percentage that was gay was quite stunning. Also percentage of us that had killed themselves before reaching thirty was quite stunning too. It suggests artistic association both with gayness and fatal mental illness.
    , @songbird
    An interesting question. I definitely would not say that applies to lesbians. To other gays? Hard to say scientifically. I've gotten the impression that they have a brain a bit more like a woman's, so more verbal. Maybe, they can leverage that skill politically, and it is the secret to part of their power.

    I'd guess there are more gay politicians than would be representative. I think part of that is not necessarily their outside appeal but rather their ability to navigate internal party politics, perhaps because of some personality advantage.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. @Nznz
    Is there a genetic predisposition among gays for extraversion and generally pleasant and outgoing social traits?

    Not in my experience; a lot of them are clearly mentally unstable and act in ways fitting for that(including being pretty avoidant of others). They’re just very clannish, so to speak and unusually heavily clustered in creative industries, where they show a lot of interest in. In a vaguely Damore way, I would say that gays aren’t necessarily better at art, but they definitely show a lot more interest in it and naturally dominate it.

    I grew up as part of an artistic collective; percentage that was gay was quite stunning. Also percentage of us that had killed themselves before reaching thirty was quite stunning too. It suggests artistic association both with gayness and fatal mental illness.

    Read More
    • Agree: Yevardian
    • Replies: @Yevardian
    Camille Paglia has written superlatively on this subject. Maybe one of the few women writers of the 20th century (or in general, really) that can be considered top-shelf reading.
    She addresses the counter point of lesbians and women generally being artistically talentless in comparison to homosexuals and men generally also. As a dike herself, I imagine she knows what she's talking about.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. JL says:
    @Daniel Chieh
    I think that AK has commented before about the difficulty of societal management being something akin to "flying is like falling without hitting the ground." I don't think its very meaningful to judge something because its destination, for example, is POZ; by that same logic in extremis, life is the origin of all death, so we have to eliminate all life to stop death.

    I'll tentatively posit that its a living system that thrives but eventually generates its own agents of destruction, akin to how living systems generate cancer cells. In that sense, the most dangerous aspect of this is the unified noosphere, so that any cancerous(yet effective) memes have unstoppable transmission and burn out the entire species rather than a localized area.

    How can logic be in extremis? It either is, or it isn’t.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. @Bardon Kaldian
    Not convinced. This all is a quasi-science of retro-history, similar to Hegelian & Marxist fabulations. Western culture begins in ancient Greece ca. 800-600 B.C. & all other ups & downs of European, and later global civilization, are not comparable to that quantum leap in human history- which remains completely inexplicable.

    In other words, nice try, but without explanatory or predictive power.

    Western culture begins in ancient Greece ca. 800-600 B.C.

    Not true. Everything we know about ancient Greece is post-hoc inventions and rationalizations, invented 2000 years after. There’s more Enlightenment and Voltaire in ‘ancient Greece’ than actual Greece.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. @Jaakko Raipala
    I don't know where this idea that the West isn't "conformist" comes from. WEIRDos are ultraconformists, you will get ostracized for even the slightest disagreement from the line that they've learned from the TV, their professors and the megacorporations.

    Sure, we are constantly told that being a part of the zealous mob is a form of "rebellion" and an expression of "individualism", but that's ridiculous. The "rebellious individualism" that's promoted by Western institutions is rejecting your parents and ancestry and it's not very different at all from Soviet "hero" stories like Pavel Morozov that were supposed to remind people that loyalty to the Soviet institutions is more virtuous than loyalty to kin.

    As for why resistance failed in the 1960s, my grandfather was a right-wing politician of a pretty militant wing from the 1950s to the 1970s so exactly during the time of failure. They focused their efforts continuing the conspiracy of officers who made plans for guerrilla war against Soviet occupation at the end of the war, hiding weapons around the country and re-founding right-wing militias from the Civil War. Their fathers had taken back the country in 1918 with some ruthless rwds action so of course they thought they would do the same thing once the communists tried their coup again.

    I inherited a bunch of rusted assault rifles and a pozzed up country not because the right-wing of my grandfathers generation was unwilling to be ruthless but because they prepared to fight the last war again and the left didn't show up. They failed to foresee the change of strategies by the left away from armed revolution. A big part of why the Western right-wing failed is that they focused too much on the Soviet threat and didn't even notice that the left was abandoning the USSR as a model.

    The Soviet Communist Party was far to the right of the American Republicans.

    Equating leftism with ‘communism’ was leftism’s most successful trick.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jaakko Raipala
    You mean the same Soviet Communist Party that legalized homosexuality, idolized free love, tried to abolish marriage altogether, legalized and promoted abortion, promoted rape of the oppressor class women by the oppressed..?

    https://www.rbth.com/history/328265-russian-sexual-revolution

    The 1960s Western sexual revolution is exactly the same as the Russian sexual revolution following 1917. If you resurrected Lenin or Trotsky from 1917 and showed them the modern West, they'd be amazed that the West is turning into a communist society without a violent revolution. Later under Stalin the Soviet Union started rejecting the original communist values but the original communism was indeed the same ideology that has taken over the West now.

    The only trick that was pulled on the West was American influence equating the right-wing with "free markets" which is why we now have practically Bolshevik parties pretending to be "right-wing". Any of our monarchists and nationalists from 1917 would find it ridiculous that there are now people who think that capitalism and free markets are "right-wing". The right-wing was the side of the old agrarian social bonds between royalty, clergy, landowners and peasants and supporting capitalism wasn't "right-wing".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. @Dmitry
    In terms of literature, Ancient Greece on some dimensions (or genres) reached a new highest level in history (plays by Aristophanes are almost as sophisticated as any satire produced in 19th century).

    Ancient Greek sculpture also reaches a new highest level of sculpture in world history.

    Writing of history is also reaching its highest level, by any standards, with Thucydides.

    But in terms of other kind of building achievements, Ancient Egypt was far ahead.

    And in terms of philosophy - Ancient India may have had an equal level around the same era.

    I disagree. Domes, vaults, and some types of arches are much more advanced technologies than heaps of stone, even big ones.

    Greeks invented logic by themselves. The rest of the world’s philosophical achievements up to that point pale in comparison just relative to that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry

    Greeks invented logic by themselves. The rest of the world’s philosophical achievements up to that point pale in comparison just relative to that.

     

    Greeks - still very basic in logic.

    Logic not invented, but discovered - and it was apparently independently to a less basic level than Greeks achieved, in Ancient India (which inspired the 19th century people), and apparently even Ancient China.

    Logic only develops still in a basic way from the 18th century - main flourishing of the subject is in 19th and particularly the 20th century. (20th century is really the golden age for logic)

    (19th century logic e.g. boolean algebra - is still so simple, and you can learn it in a day).


    I disagree. Domes, vaults, and some types of arches are much more advanced technologies than heaps of stone, even big ones.

     

    Technologically Great Pyramids are probably a lot more advanced than anything left from Greek architecture.

    And even today, places like Luxor will far more impress visitor, than any Greek sites.

    Greek sites are important because we can learn about the Greek culture, literature, history through it - but if you removed all those elements, normal people would not be impressed (if you take philistine tourist, they would be far more impressed by sites of Ancient Egypt).

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. @Bardon Kaldian
    Not convinced. This all is a quasi-science of retro-history, similar to Hegelian & Marxist fabulations. Western culture begins in ancient Greece ca. 800-600 B.C. & all other ups & downs of European, and later global civilization, are not comparable to that quantum leap in human history- which remains completely inexplicable.

    In other words, nice try, but without explanatory or predictive power.

    I am not a particularly strong supporter of this theory, as both hbd*chick and Jayman would confirm.

    I think literacy, IQ, and climate/agriculture explain almost everything. E.g., for Greece: http://www.unz.com/akarlin/ancient-greeks-not-geniuses/

    However, the phenomena they describe are real, and certainly cannot have hindered Europe’s success. This must have especially contributed favorably to the Dutch developing most of the institutions of modern capitalism during the 16-17th centuries.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Nznz
    What would you say about high verbal IQ social conservatives as a ruling/gentry class, like the Chinese scholar officials? Is there anything comparable in Western history? Maybe the Roman Republic?
    , @Dmitry
    The special thing about Ancient Greek culture - during its golden age - is not they were particularly intelligent. But that it is a particularly beautiful and creatively/artistically flourishing civilization.

    Our emotion in relation to it is aesthetic. It's the most easy ancient culture to fall in love with (even for people which just read a few books in translation).

    They were not unusually intelligent - the kind of typical level of interlocutors, usually aristocratic youth in Athens, in Plato's dialogues, are of complete retards. The intelligence level would have been vastly below modern levels. When a more intelligent interlocutor arrives (another Sophist philosopher) who can argue some simple ideas, they are seen like a superhero with magical powers.

    And it's even these stupider Greeks which some modern people inspired by Ancient Greece - like Nietzsche - believe represent the more healthy attitudes and noble attitudes of the time. (A lot of what is inspiring in Ancient Greece, is their naive simplicity).

    You can compare their religious level - primitive fairy tales compared to the Ancient Indian level.

    , @Bardon Kaldian
    Your text is not convincing, either. I am not too interested in IQ debates, and within, as well without that paradigm, I don't see how one can explain the birth of Greek culture that had revolutionized the world & is, in many respects, the basis of global civilization.

    First a few points: I'm writing in a politically correct notation (BCE/CE to avoid our bias BC/AD); I know that, theoretically, one cannot "prove" that a product of one culture is "higher" or "better" than some work from another, simply because there in no common referential frame (even within one culture, there is no "proof"- as George Steiner had said in his magisterial "Tolstoy or Dostoevsky", if you don't see that Tolstoy's "Anna Karenina" is greater, more human & richer work than Flaubert's "Mme Bovary" (the same topic, female adultery)- then you are just deaf to mental-emotional-spiritual "tonalities" & nothing more can be said about it).

    In the case of old Greeks, we may summarize their achievement from 700-200 BCE (of course, and later, but I just don't won't to mess with Christianity, Romans, whatnot...). The only rivals are Chinese, Indian, Middle Eastern & Egyptian civilizations.

    In the field of sciences, Greeks invented science as a unified field of knowledge. Mathematical proof & systematic scientific thinking are their achievements, as testified by Euclid's "Elements", one of the most influential books ever written. Archimedes with his many contributions (among them integral calculus) remains among top 3-5 world mathematicians, while Pythagoras is basically a god of mathematics and Eratosthenes (along with Indians, the calculated the earth's circumference) is a father of geography..... All "ethnic" math traditions lag behind Greek, even Indian one, which had had some uncanny advantages that later Europeans have modified & developed.

    Also heliocentric system (only Greeks) etc. etc. Chinese medicine was probably more developed (see Needham's magnum opus), but Greek one was not bad- actually, perhaps better than Egyptian & close to Chinese and Indian.

    Philosophy. All others have a limited range of thought & and are mostly commenters of their sacred texts. In Greece, we have truly different schools of thought that cover what we now call materialism, objective and subjective idealism, skepticism, stoicism, empiricism, relativism, philosophy of language, political philosophy, aesthetics, psychology, elements of social philosophy, ethics,... It is true that other great civilizations have elements of that (Arthashastra, Chu Hsi, ..)- but there is nowhere such a wealth of ideas that later developed in global world- evolution (all Ionian cosmologies are evolutionary), democracy, fascism, eugenics, physical education, feminism, complete education for body, emotions & mind (Plato), mathematized cosmos (Pythagoras), cosmopolitanism (stoics, but Socrates, too), intellectual questioning of slavery, logic (Plato, then finally Aristotle), ....

    Literature. Apart from great epics of India, which are culturally different, evidently Greek literature has some universal masterpieces that remain world classics, especially tragedy (which was unknown outside of Greek world); lyric poetry cannot be compared with Chinese or Hindu because these genres are too entangled with the structure of language.

    As for history, Thucydides remains a classic historian, not inferior to any other anywhere & anytime.

    Visual arts. Putting aside early stylizations, it is evident that Greek sculpture is so superior that Chinese & Indian & Assyrian are basically a joke when we put them alongside Greek achievement:

    Chinese sculpture

    https://www.google.com/search?q=chinese+sculpture&client=firefox-b&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwie7JqlvbfcAhXPZFAKHbXMBVEQ_AUICigB&biw=1480&bih=712

    Indian sculpture

    https://www.google.com/search?q=indian+sculpture&client=firefox-b&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiLpoy-vbfcAhVMPFAKHTBBBhsQ_AUICigB&biw=1480&bih=712

    Greek sculpture

    https://www.google.com/search?q=greek+sculpture&client=firefox-b&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwik2OnZvbfcAhULLlAKHSNNDlkQ_AUICigB&biw=1480&bih=712

    Of course, everyone is free to disagree, but others are short, fat, comic, without individuality, clumsy,... Whatever.

    And if you add Alexander the Great, what then remains of others?

    Greece is the basis of the Western culture (unfortunately, and the gay thing), and Western culture is the world global culture; Greek super-achievers still remain somewhere on the top of many disciplines: Phidias, Plato, Aristotle, Homer, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Pythagoras, Archimedes, Hippocrates, Euclid, Alex the Great, Thucydides, ... They created scientific terminology which is in use even in modern disciplines (chromodynamics, topology, genetics, ..).

    What could have been done more?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. @anonymous coward
    The Soviet Communist Party was far to the right of the American Republicans.

    Equating leftism with 'communism' was leftism's most successful trick.

    You mean the same Soviet Communist Party that legalized homosexuality, idolized free love, tried to abolish marriage altogether, legalized and promoted abortion, promoted rape of the oppressor class women by the oppressed..?

    https://www.rbth.com/history/328265-russian-sexual-revolution

    The 1960s Western sexual revolution is exactly the same as the Russian sexual revolution following 1917. If you resurrected Lenin or Trotsky from 1917 and showed them the modern West, they’d be amazed that the West is turning into a communist society without a violent revolution. Later under Stalin the Soviet Union started rejecting the original communist values but the original communism was indeed the same ideology that has taken over the West now.

    The only trick that was pulled on the West was American influence equating the right-wing with “free markets” which is why we now have practically Bolshevik parties pretending to be “right-wing”. Any of our monarchists and nationalists from 1917 would find it ridiculous that there are now people who think that capitalism and free markets are “right-wing”. The right-wing was the side of the old agrarian social bonds between royalty, clergy, landowners and peasants and supporting capitalism wasn’t “right-wing”.

    Read More
    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin
    • Replies: @anonymous coward

    You mean the same Soviet Communist Party that legalized homosexuality, idolized free love, tried to abolish marriage altogether, legalized and promoted abortion, promoted rape of the oppressor class women by the oppressed..?
     
    The Communist Party has changed names, charters and organization structures during the Soviet Union.

    The old familiar CPSU existed from 1952 to 1991, and it was a conservative Stalinist party.

    1952 was the year when they formally ditched the 'bolshevik' moniker, but their turn to the right was much earlier. The USSR had legal abortions from 1920, then banned them in 1936, then made legal again in 1955. Homosexuality was legalized in 1918 (by the liberals, not the bolsheviks, by the way), then criminalized again in 1934.

    So the history of leftism in the USSR is a complex one, but in general the trend was more right-leaning than in the USA.
    , @gate666
    nonsense lenin opposed free love.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. songbird says:
    @Nznz
    Is there a genetic predisposition among gays for extraversion and generally pleasant and outgoing social traits?

    An interesting question. I definitely would not say that applies to lesbians. To other gays? Hard to say scientifically. I’ve gotten the impression that they have a brain a bit more like a woman’s, so more verbal. Maybe, they can leverage that skill politically, and it is the secret to part of their power.

    I’d guess there are more gay politicians than would be representative. I think part of that is not necessarily their outside appeal but rather their ability to navigate internal party politics, perhaps because of some personality advantage.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. Nznz says: • Website
    @Anatoly Karlin
    I am not a particularly strong supporter of this theory, as both hbd*chick and Jayman would confirm.

    I think literacy, IQ, and climate/agriculture explain almost everything. E.g., for Greece: http://www.unz.com/akarlin/ancient-greeks-not-geniuses/

    However, the phenomena they describe are real, and certainly cannot have hindered Europe's success. This must have especially contributed favorably to the Dutch developing most of the institutions of modern capitalism during the 16-17th centuries.

    What would you say about high verbal IQ social conservatives as a ruling/gentry class, like the Chinese scholar officials? Is there anything comparable in Western history? Maybe the Roman Republic?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. Nznz says: • Website
    @songbird
    In terms of genetics, in theory, gayness is very maladaptive. Basically, gays would only have to have slightly less TFR and gay genes would be eliminated.

    I'd agree that gayness seems to vary by population, which is difficult to square with the theory of it not being genetic.

    The incredible influence of gays is a puzzle. I used to think that they had time to be more political because of lack of family - so they could both rise to positions and spend more time advancing their agenda. Also, a predilection for the arts and thus for setting the culture. But I think it just has high signaling value. Look at the rainbow flag - so many colors! Many gays speak in a lisp - another signal.

    Some say that it was AIDS - created sympathy for an unnatural target. But I think it is independent of AIDS. Mostly the signaling value alone - aberration, paired with a population that is good at being its own advocates, because it harnesses the sex drive at its core identity, which isn't really true of heterosexuals.

    Do celibate homosexuals tend to have a different personality profile than other homosexuals?

    Read More
    • Replies: @songbird
    I imagine it is so.
    , @Jim Bob Lassiter
    What percentage of male homosexuals are celibate? Probably much lower that the percentage that would try to fuck an alligator.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. Anonymous[140] • Disclaimer says:
    @Beckow

    ...because they prepared to fight the last war again and the left didn’t show up...
     
    Left has had the initiative since roughly 18th century, they choose what we fight about, where, and how. That is a huge disadvantage for the more traditionally minded people who get outflanked. Traditionalism leads to a lack of initiative. The nutty progressives also by definition dominate modern culture that is all about what my grandpa called 'novelties'. It appeals to teenagers and it goes downhill from there.

    How about that kin-based cluster in Finland? Amazing, but it doesn't surprise me. In that cold weather a cute cousin looks pretty good. Or maybe they just researched the Samis. In any case, you have that going for you...

    You might be onto something with the Saamis. The data in those graphics comes from Murdock’s Ethnographic Atlas.

    https://archive.org/details/GeorgeP.MurdockEthnographicAtlasUniversityOfPittsburghPress1967

    The problem? There are no Finns or Estonians or Karelians or any other closely related Balto-Finnic peoples in the Atlas, at least not in the 1967 version they refer to. Of the Finno-Ugric group besides Hungarians there are Cheremis (an Uralic people with a very distant relation, think English-Ossetian distant) and you guessed it, Saamis, Konkama Lapps of Sweden to be precise. There is indeed a very real chance that “Finland” in those charts in fact is based on habits of some small Saami or Cheremis community, would be great if someone can get the authors to double check before it comes up in peer review.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. Dmitry says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    I disagree. Domes, vaults, and some types of arches are much more advanced technologies than heaps of stone, even big ones.

    Greeks invented logic by themselves. The rest of the world's philosophical achievements up to that point pale in comparison just relative to that.

    Greeks invented logic by themselves. The rest of the world’s philosophical achievements up to that point pale in comparison just relative to that.

    Greeks – still very basic in logic.

    Logic not invented, but discovered – and it was apparently independently to a less basic level than Greeks achieved, in Ancient India (which inspired the 19th century people), and apparently even Ancient China.

    Logic only develops still in a basic way from the 18th century – main flourishing of the subject is in 19th and particularly the 20th century. (20th century is really the golden age for logic)

    (19th century logic e.g. boolean algebra – is still so simple, and you can learn it in a day).

    I disagree. Domes, vaults, and some types of arches are much more advanced technologies than heaps of stone, even big ones.

    Technologically Great Pyramids are probably a lot more advanced than anything left from Greek architecture.

    And even today, places like Luxor will far more impress visitor, than any Greek sites.

    Greek sites are important because we can learn about the Greek culture, literature, history through it – but if you removed all those elements, normal people would not be impressed (if you take philistine tourist, they would be far more impressed by sites of Ancient Egypt).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry

    Greek sites are important because we can learn about the Greek culture, literature, history through it
     
    Ancient Sparta even had no construction achievements, no impressive sites to visit now, and no intellectual achievements.

    And yet Ancient Sparta - it's almost the most inspiring of all Ancient Greece.
    , @Dmitry
    World's first symbolic logic - from Ancient India, invented by grammarian Panini, and more formal than any logic developed in Ancient Greece (which are incredibly basic stuff).

    I can't find any tutorial on Panini (just people showing it's similar as Boolean algebra).

    http://doc.gold.ac.uk/aisb50/AISB50-S13/AISB50-S13-Kadvany-paper.pdf

    Here biography of Panini (520 BC-460 BC), which claims it is the same as modern systems (but with no tutorial)

    http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Panini.html

    Some media coverage

    https://medium.com/@dmitrypavluk/we-should-thank-sanskrit-for-the-21st-century-e771b6c12f14

    , @Joe Schmoe
    Greek architecture did far more in advancing interior space which led to stunning achievements like the Pantheon by the Romans which was the largest dome in the world for like 1800 years. Creating interior spaces is a far more humanistic endeavor than just monuments that are designed to be viewed from the exterior and which have almost no space inside for activities. Greek architecture which led directly to Roman focused more on creating interior spaces for people to use for their purposes rather than just showcasing images of the elite.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. Dmitry says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    I am not a particularly strong supporter of this theory, as both hbd*chick and Jayman would confirm.

    I think literacy, IQ, and climate/agriculture explain almost everything. E.g., for Greece: http://www.unz.com/akarlin/ancient-greeks-not-geniuses/

    However, the phenomena they describe are real, and certainly cannot have hindered Europe's success. This must have especially contributed favorably to the Dutch developing most of the institutions of modern capitalism during the 16-17th centuries.

    The special thing about Ancient Greek culture – during its golden age – is not they were particularly intelligent. But that it is a particularly beautiful and creatively/artistically flourishing civilization.

    Our emotion in relation to it is aesthetic. It’s the most easy ancient culture to fall in love with (even for people which just read a few books in translation).

    They were not unusually intelligent – the kind of typical level of interlocutors, usually aristocratic youth in Athens, in Plato’s dialogues, are of complete retards. The intelligence level would have been vastly below modern levels. When a more intelligent interlocutor arrives (another Sophist philosopher) who can argue some simple ideas, they are seen like a superhero with magical powers.

    And it’s even these stupider Greeks which some modern people inspired by Ancient Greece – like Nietzsche – believe represent the more healthy attitudes and noble attitudes of the time. (A lot of what is inspiring in Ancient Greece, is their naive simplicity).

    You can compare their religious level – primitive fairy tales compared to the Ancient Indian level.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. @Rosie

    The incredible influence of gays is a puzzle. I used to think that they had time to be more political because of lack of family – so they could both rise to positions and spend more time advancing their agenda.
     
    It seems to me that an advantage in time available for career, although small on the individual level, would add up in the aggregate, leading to a heavily gay elite. Then, you would also expect to see a network effect, as disproportionately successful gays begin to support and promote each other, lead into an even gayer elite in the future, etc...

    The influence of gays is perhaps similar to that of another relatively small group (which shall go unnamed) known for above-average intelligence and networking skills.

    With regard to intelligence, I assume the following results are still valid:

    Intelligence in Homosexuals, Transsexuals and Hypogonadotropic Eunuchoids

    Jan Raboch and I. Šípová, The Journal of Sex Research, Vol. 10, No. 2 (May, 1974), pp. 156-161

    Abstract

    Investigation of intellectual capacity by means of Raven’s test was performed in groups of 17 non-feminine and 24 feminine homosexual patients, 24 genetically male transsexuals, 20 adult hypogonadotropic eunuchoids and 100 men from sterile marriages with normospermia in ejaculate. In 3 out of 4 pathological groups the IQ was higher than 110 in more than 60% of subjects; in the group of male transsexuals 50% of subjects exhibited an IQ above the average. Taking into account also the findings of other authors, we are putting forward a hypothesis that disorders in the supply of steroid hormones acting in the formative period of hypothalamus disturb, on one hand, the sexual development and, on the other hand, have a tendency to increase the mental level of these subjects.

    https://www.jstor.org/stable/3811285?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu

    50% of subjects exhibited an IQ above the average
     
    Very profound. Earth shattering.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. utu says:
    @for-the-record
    The influence of gays is perhaps similar to that of another relatively small group (which shall go unnamed) known for above-average intelligence and networking skills.

    With regard to intelligence, I assume the following results are still valid:

    Intelligence in Homosexuals, Transsexuals and Hypogonadotropic Eunuchoids

    Jan Raboch and I. Šípová, The Journal of Sex Research, Vol. 10, No. 2 (May, 1974), pp. 156-161

    Abstract

    Investigation of intellectual capacity by means of Raven's test was performed in groups of 17 non-feminine and 24 feminine homosexual patients, 24 genetically male transsexuals, 20 adult hypogonadotropic eunuchoids and 100 men from sterile marriages with normospermia in ejaculate. In 3 out of 4 pathological groups the IQ was higher than 110 in more than 60% of subjects; in the group of male transsexuals 50% of subjects exhibited an IQ above the average. Taking into account also the findings of other authors, we are putting forward a hypothesis that disorders in the supply of steroid hormones acting in the formative period of hypothalamus disturb, on one hand, the sexual development and, on the other hand, have a tendency to increase the mental level of these subjects.

    https://www.jstor.org/stable/3811285?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
     

    50% of subjects exhibited an IQ above the average

    Very profound. Earth shattering.

    Read More
    • LOL: Daniel Chieh
    • Replies: @songbird
    In all seriousness, I would expect it to be lower, based on IQ being partly a proxy for brain health.
    , @for-the-record
    Very profound. Earth shattering.

    The way the results are presented in the abstract is indeed very awkward, perhaps reflecting the authors' non-native English. Looking at the IQ categories reported in the study it turns out that "average" is 91-110, while "above average" is 111 and above. So 50% had IQs above 110.

    The averages for the 4 "pathological" groups [article published in 1974] were:

    non-feminine homosexuals-- 110.4

    feminine homosexuals -- 113.7

    genetically male transsexuals -- 106.6

    hypogonadotropic eunuchoids -- 109.7
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. Dmitry says:
    @Dmitry

    Greeks invented logic by themselves. The rest of the world’s philosophical achievements up to that point pale in comparison just relative to that.

     

    Greeks - still very basic in logic.

    Logic not invented, but discovered - and it was apparently independently to a less basic level than Greeks achieved, in Ancient India (which inspired the 19th century people), and apparently even Ancient China.

    Logic only develops still in a basic way from the 18th century - main flourishing of the subject is in 19th and particularly the 20th century. (20th century is really the golden age for logic)

    (19th century logic e.g. boolean algebra - is still so simple, and you can learn it in a day).


    I disagree. Domes, vaults, and some types of arches are much more advanced technologies than heaps of stone, even big ones.

     

    Technologically Great Pyramids are probably a lot more advanced than anything left from Greek architecture.

    And even today, places like Luxor will far more impress visitor, than any Greek sites.

    Greek sites are important because we can learn about the Greek culture, literature, history through it - but if you removed all those elements, normal people would not be impressed (if you take philistine tourist, they would be far more impressed by sites of Ancient Egypt).

    Greek sites are important because we can learn about the Greek culture, literature, history through it

    Ancient Sparta even had no construction achievements, no impressive sites to visit now, and no intellectual achievements.

    And yet Ancient Sparta – it’s almost the most inspiring of all Ancient Greece.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. songbird says:
    @utu

    50% of subjects exhibited an IQ above the average
     
    Very profound. Earth shattering.

    In all seriousness, I would expect it to be lower, based on IQ being partly a proxy for brain health.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    There is some evidence that some disorders such a hyperfrontality contribute to intelligence.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. songbird says:
    @Nznz
    Do celibate homosexuals tend to have a different personality profile than other homosexuals?

    I imagine it is so.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. notanon says:
    @Nznz
    How is this a good thing, considering that this is where the origin of liberalism and LGBTQIATZ movement comes from? I mean a more conformist and conservative West would have been a lot more ruthless against the rise of liberalism in the 1960s.

    How is this a good thing

    maximizes synergy, encourages innovation, puts men on the moon etc

    this is where the origin of liberalism

    yes, oops

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    maximizes synergy, encourages innovation, puts men on the moon etc
     
    What's the basis for this claim?

    Did Yuri Gagarin only manage to orbit the Earth and not land on the moon because Russia was Orthodox?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. notanon says:
    @Bardon Kaldian
    Not convinced. This all is a quasi-science of retro-history, similar to Hegelian & Marxist fabulations. Western culture begins in ancient Greece ca. 800-600 B.C. & all other ups & downs of European, and later global civilization, are not comparable to that quantum leap in human history- which remains completely inexplicable.

    In other words, nice try, but without explanatory or predictive power.

    begins in ancient Greece ca. 800-600 B.C

    Cleisthenes’ reforms may have had the same effect on Athens as the Church ban on cousin marriage

    (in the interval between the break up of the old clan structure and before the new clan structure had solidified)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Cleisthenes increased the number of tribes from 4 to 10.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. @Jaakko Raipala
    You mean the same Soviet Communist Party that legalized homosexuality, idolized free love, tried to abolish marriage altogether, legalized and promoted abortion, promoted rape of the oppressor class women by the oppressed..?

    https://www.rbth.com/history/328265-russian-sexual-revolution

    The 1960s Western sexual revolution is exactly the same as the Russian sexual revolution following 1917. If you resurrected Lenin or Trotsky from 1917 and showed them the modern West, they'd be amazed that the West is turning into a communist society without a violent revolution. Later under Stalin the Soviet Union started rejecting the original communist values but the original communism was indeed the same ideology that has taken over the West now.

    The only trick that was pulled on the West was American influence equating the right-wing with "free markets" which is why we now have practically Bolshevik parties pretending to be "right-wing". Any of our monarchists and nationalists from 1917 would find it ridiculous that there are now people who think that capitalism and free markets are "right-wing". The right-wing was the side of the old agrarian social bonds between royalty, clergy, landowners and peasants and supporting capitalism wasn't "right-wing".

    You mean the same Soviet Communist Party that legalized homosexuality, idolized free love, tried to abolish marriage altogether, legalized and promoted abortion, promoted rape of the oppressor class women by the oppressed..?

    The Communist Party has changed names, charters and organization structures during the Soviet Union.

    The old familiar CPSU existed from 1952 to 1991, and it was a conservative Stalinist party.

    1952 was the year when they formally ditched the ‘bolshevik’ moniker, but their turn to the right was much earlier. The USSR had legal abortions from 1920, then banned them in 1936, then made legal again in 1955. Homosexuality was legalized in 1918 (by the liberals, not the bolsheviks, by the way), then criminalized again in 1934.

    So the history of leftism in the USSR is a complex one, but in general the trend was more right-leaning than in the USA.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. Talha says:

    Read More
    • Replies: @songbird
    Talha,

    I'd be curious what your thoughts are regarding cousin marriage in Saudi Arabia.

    My own are that the Saudis clearly know it is bad, but are afraid to ban it for fear of being deposed. They may be scoundrels, but in my view, independent of that, it would be pretty difficult to do any other meaningful reforms if their fear is justified, and I think it is.

    Of course, they should still ban it, but maybe they are trying to bring it below some threshold first through weaker discouragements, like genetic screening.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. notanon says:
    @Jaakko Raipala
    I don't know where this idea that the West isn't "conformist" comes from. WEIRDos are ultraconformists, you will get ostracized for even the slightest disagreement from the line that they've learned from the TV, their professors and the megacorporations.

    Sure, we are constantly told that being a part of the zealous mob is a form of "rebellion" and an expression of "individualism", but that's ridiculous. The "rebellious individualism" that's promoted by Western institutions is rejecting your parents and ancestry and it's not very different at all from Soviet "hero" stories like Pavel Morozov that were supposed to remind people that loyalty to the Soviet institutions is more virtuous than loyalty to kin.

    As for why resistance failed in the 1960s, my grandfather was a right-wing politician of a pretty militant wing from the 1950s to the 1970s so exactly during the time of failure. They focused their efforts continuing the conspiracy of officers who made plans for guerrilla war against Soviet occupation at the end of the war, hiding weapons around the country and re-founding right-wing militias from the Civil War. Their fathers had taken back the country in 1918 with some ruthless rwds action so of course they thought they would do the same thing once the communists tried their coup again.

    I inherited a bunch of rusted assault rifles and a pozzed up country not because the right-wing of my grandfathers generation was unwilling to be ruthless but because they prepared to fight the last war again and the left didn't show up. They failed to foresee the change of strategies by the left away from armed revolution. A big part of why the Western right-wing failed is that they focused too much on the Soviet threat and didn't even notice that the left was abandoning the USSR as a model.

    I don’t know where this idea that the West isn’t “conformist” comes from.

    right – it’s more a question of where their conformism is decided – non-WEIRD populations look locally, clan, familial, traditional while WEIRD populations (cos they cooperate on a larger scale) look for a larger scale and more “universal” code decided by a dominant moral authority (which is currently and to our great detriment TV, particularly US TV).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Logan
    I agree.

    The WEIRDOs are forming their own worldwide tribe, while dislocating their shoulders patting themselves on the back for their rejection of tribalism.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. notanon says:
    @songbird

    I don’t know where this idea that the West isn’t “conformist” comes from.
     
    I'd say that there are some pretty big differences in the school environment: dress code: East vs. West, but I'm not disagreeing with you. People who are freakish in appearance - have really weird hair (long for a guy, dyed bright colors, dreadlocks, afros...) or large-scale body modifications seem to just be signaling their excessive willingness to embrace the narrative.

    I really think there is something to signaling being fairly central to the Left. I recently made the unscientific observation that Leftist bumper stickers seem to take up more space than Rightist ones. Meaning, see a car with a Right one, and you will see a car with two or more Left ones.

    I really think there is something to signaling being fairly central to the Left.

    i think virtue-signalling is a side effect of having a more universalist morality – in familial morality virtue = how closely related you are, in a WEIRD society you have to signal your conformity to the dominant morality (and of course sociopaths have to signal the hardest to disguise themselves).

    what people signal is decided by the dominant moral authority hence the similarity in behavior but difference in detail between puritan and SJW.

    Read More
    • Replies: @songbird
    There's so much signaling in nature that I think there may be a spectrum of genetic propensity in humans to signal, and if there is then it may be part of an evolutionary strategy to help organize the group. Leftism is a group power dynamic strategy in my view, mainly built around leveraging group power to redistribute from individuals or families.

    Any strategy that was successful at gaining resources is probably hardwired into some people, and proto-Leftism probably was, in some circumstances. I think it may be mal-adaptive today because of technology having removed some of the natural checks and balances.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. songbird says:
    @Talha
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PB-wmOYelnM

    Talha,

    I’d be curious what your thoughts are regarding cousin marriage in Saudi Arabia.

    My own are that the Saudis clearly know it is bad, but are afraid to ban it for fear of being deposed. They may be scoundrels, but in my view, independent of that, it would be pretty difficult to do any other meaningful reforms if their fear is justified, and I think it is.

    Of course, they should still ban it, but maybe they are trying to bring it below some threshold first through weaker discouragements, like genetic screening.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha

    regarding cousin marriage in Saudi Arabia
     
    Those aren't my folk and have a different culture than where I came from. Pakistan is quite into cousin marriage also. Personally, I think any level of cousin marriage beyond a 10-15% is not a good trajectory for society.

    but are afraid to ban it for fear of being deposed
     
    They are going to have to go through the ulema first. They will have to explain the reasons why something that is permitted by the Shariah should be outlawed. They cannot make a moral case, but they could try to make one as far as something that is necessary for the benefit/health of society.

    Of course, they should still ban it
     
    There is no need to hit the problem with a sledgehammer. If they can help reduce the rate, that will hopefully be all that is necessary. The rate is definitely too high right now.

    like genetic screening.
     
    Agreed, I think genetic counseling for prospective marriage partners is a very beneficial thing when concerns about detriment to offspring is a real concern.

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. notanon says:
    @Nznz
    Is there a genetic explanation for why Thailand or the Philippines has such a huge number or effeminate males and trannies? Certainly seems a lot larger than 0.6 percent of the male population. And why would the corporate world back the LGBT issue so much since LGBT new up such a miniscule amount of the population, and hence are just a rounding error in the profit of corporations, i mean i can understand why corporations may back mass immigration or civil rights from a profit standpoint considering the large percentage of minority consumer, but why put financial backing behind trannies, which makr about half of one percent of the population?

    Is there a genetic explanation for why Thailand or the Philippines has such a huge number or effeminate males and trannies?

    if one explanation or part explanation is hormone imbalance in the womb then maybe those countries have a lot of natural estrogens somewhere in their diet

    And why would the corporate world back the LGBT issue so much

    cheap labor

    (if they only adopted the diversity part of SJW ideology it would be obvious they were doing it for cheap labor so they have to adopt the whole package)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. songbird says:
    @notanon

    I really think there is something to signaling being fairly central to the Left.
     
    i think virtue-signalling is a side effect of having a more universalist morality - in familial morality virtue = how closely related you are, in a WEIRD society you have to signal your conformity to the dominant morality (and of course sociopaths have to signal the hardest to disguise themselves).

    what people signal is decided by the dominant moral authority hence the similarity in behavior but difference in detail between puritan and SJW.

    There’s so much signaling in nature that I think there may be a spectrum of genetic propensity in humans to signal, and if there is then it may be part of an evolutionary strategy to help organize the group. Leftism is a group power dynamic strategy in my view, mainly built around leveraging group power to redistribute from individuals or families.

    Any strategy that was successful at gaining resources is probably hardwired into some people, and proto-Leftism probably was, in some circumstances. I think it may be mal-adaptive today because of technology having removed some of the natural checks and balances.

    Read More
    • Replies: @notanon

    it may be part of an evolutionary strategy to help organize the group
     
    yes i think that's exactly what it is - and it's very effective when the controlling moral authority has adaptive goals.

    its big weakness is if the controlling moral authority is captured by people with maladaptive goals then all that group synergy and hyper-efficiency gets channeled into self-destructive behavior.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. notanon says:

    i wonder if it’s safe enough for hubchik to come out yet?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  50. Dmitry says:
    @Dmitry

    Greeks invented logic by themselves. The rest of the world’s philosophical achievements up to that point pale in comparison just relative to that.

     

    Greeks - still very basic in logic.

    Logic not invented, but discovered - and it was apparently independently to a less basic level than Greeks achieved, in Ancient India (which inspired the 19th century people), and apparently even Ancient China.

    Logic only develops still in a basic way from the 18th century - main flourishing of the subject is in 19th and particularly the 20th century. (20th century is really the golden age for logic)

    (19th century logic e.g. boolean algebra - is still so simple, and you can learn it in a day).


    I disagree. Domes, vaults, and some types of arches are much more advanced technologies than heaps of stone, even big ones.

     

    Technologically Great Pyramids are probably a lot more advanced than anything left from Greek architecture.

    And even today, places like Luxor will far more impress visitor, than any Greek sites.

    Greek sites are important because we can learn about the Greek culture, literature, history through it - but if you removed all those elements, normal people would not be impressed (if you take philistine tourist, they would be far more impressed by sites of Ancient Egypt).

    World’s first symbolic logic – from Ancient India, invented by grammarian Panini, and more formal than any logic developed in Ancient Greece (which are incredibly basic stuff).

    I can’t find any tutorial on Panini (just people showing it’s similar as Boolean algebra).

    http://doc.gold.ac.uk/aisb50/AISB50-S13/AISB50-S13-Kadvany-paper.pdf

    Here biography of Panini (520 BC-460 BC), which claims it is the same as modern systems (but with no tutorial)

    http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Panini.html

    Some media coverage

    https://medium.com/@dmitrypavluk/we-should-thank-sanskrit-for-the-21st-century-e771b6c12f14

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    Somebody here wrote:

    Everything we know about ancient Greece is post-hoc inventions and rationalizations, invented 2000 years after. There’s more Enlightenment and Voltaire in ‘ancient Greece’ than actual Greece.
     
    It occurred to me that this may more apply to claims coming from India which are being pulled like rabbits from magician's hat. This may include this guy Panini. Any historical narrative is a construction that has a political function.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. Talha says:
    @songbird
    Talha,

    I'd be curious what your thoughts are regarding cousin marriage in Saudi Arabia.

    My own are that the Saudis clearly know it is bad, but are afraid to ban it for fear of being deposed. They may be scoundrels, but in my view, independent of that, it would be pretty difficult to do any other meaningful reforms if their fear is justified, and I think it is.

    Of course, they should still ban it, but maybe they are trying to bring it below some threshold first through weaker discouragements, like genetic screening.

    regarding cousin marriage in Saudi Arabia

    Those aren’t my folk and have a different culture than where I came from. Pakistan is quite into cousin marriage also. Personally, I think any level of cousin marriage beyond a 10-15% is not a good trajectory for society.

    but are afraid to ban it for fear of being deposed

    They are going to have to go through the ulema first. They will have to explain the reasons why something that is permitted by the Shariah should be outlawed. They cannot make a moral case, but they could try to make one as far as something that is necessary for the benefit/health of society.

    Of course, they should still ban it

    There is no need to hit the problem with a sledgehammer. If they can help reduce the rate, that will hopefully be all that is necessary. The rate is definitely too high right now.

    like genetic screening.

    Agreed, I think genetic counseling for prospective marriage partners is a very beneficial thing when concerns about detriment to offspring is a real concern.

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. notanon says:
    @songbird
    There's so much signaling in nature that I think there may be a spectrum of genetic propensity in humans to signal, and if there is then it may be part of an evolutionary strategy to help organize the group. Leftism is a group power dynamic strategy in my view, mainly built around leveraging group power to redistribute from individuals or families.

    Any strategy that was successful at gaining resources is probably hardwired into some people, and proto-Leftism probably was, in some circumstances. I think it may be mal-adaptive today because of technology having removed some of the natural checks and balances.

    it may be part of an evolutionary strategy to help organize the group

    yes i think that’s exactly what it is – and it’s very effective when the controlling moral authority has adaptive goals.

    its big weakness is if the controlling moral authority is captured by people with maladaptive goals then all that group synergy and hyper-efficiency gets channeled into self-destructive behavior.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. utu says:
    @Dmitry
    World's first symbolic logic - from Ancient India, invented by grammarian Panini, and more formal than any logic developed in Ancient Greece (which are incredibly basic stuff).

    I can't find any tutorial on Panini (just people showing it's similar as Boolean algebra).

    http://doc.gold.ac.uk/aisb50/AISB50-S13/AISB50-S13-Kadvany-paper.pdf

    Here biography of Panini (520 BC-460 BC), which claims it is the same as modern systems (but with no tutorial)

    http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Panini.html

    Some media coverage

    https://medium.com/@dmitrypavluk/we-should-thank-sanskrit-for-the-21st-century-e771b6c12f14

    Somebody here wrote:

    Everything we know about ancient Greece is post-hoc inventions and rationalizations, invented 2000 years after. There’s more Enlightenment and Voltaire in ‘ancient Greece’ than actual Greece.

    It occurred to me that this may more apply to claims coming from India which are being pulled like rabbits from magician’s hat. This may include this guy Panini. Any historical narrative is a construction that has a political function.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry
    I think it is possible there is even some influence, as De Morgan, Babbage and Boole were obsessed with Ancient India.

    If you see Wikipedia article for De Morgan, it says:

    In the introduction to this book, he acknowledged being aware of the Indian tradition of logic, although it is not known whether this had any influence on his own work.

     

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustus_De_Morgan#London_University/


    For Babbage, it says:

    Mary Boole, the wife of Babbage's collaborator George Boole claimed that there was profound influence — via her uncle George Everest — of Indian thought in general and Indian logic, in particular, on him and on George Boole, as well as on Augustus De Morgan:

     

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Babbage#Influence



    -


    About Ancient India itself - I know almost nothing, so not a person who can comment on it.
    , @Numinous

    It occurred to me that this may more apply to claims coming from India which are being pulled like rabbits from magician’s hat. This may include this guy Panini.
     
    There are indeed many crazy claims made by our nationalists about the so-called achievements of ancient Indians, but Panini and his contributions are about as incontrovertible as you can get. If you believe in Socrates and Plato (and believe they were Greek), you ought to believe in Panini (and believe that he was Indian). The guy wasn't plucked out of obscurity through archaeological and linguistics innovations in the 19th century. He's been known in India on a continuous basis over the ages. Our civilization's preservation of the Sanskrit language and various philosophical texts composed in that language has been pitch-perfect, and Panini is one the people to thank for that.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. Dmitry says:
    @utu
    Somebody here wrote:

    Everything we know about ancient Greece is post-hoc inventions and rationalizations, invented 2000 years after. There’s more Enlightenment and Voltaire in ‘ancient Greece’ than actual Greece.
     
    It occurred to me that this may more apply to claims coming from India which are being pulled like rabbits from magician's hat. This may include this guy Panini. Any historical narrative is a construction that has a political function.

    I think it is possible there is even some influence, as De Morgan, Babbage and Boole were obsessed with Ancient India.

    If you see Wikipedia article for De Morgan, it says:

    In the introduction to this book, he acknowledged being aware of the Indian tradition of logic, although it is not known whether this had any influence on his own work.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustus_De_Morgan#London_University/

    For Babbage, it says:

    Mary Boole, the wife of Babbage’s collaborator George Boole claimed that there was profound influence — via her uncle George Everest — of Indian thought in general and Indian logic, in particular, on him and on George Boole, as well as on Augustus De Morgan:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Babbage#Influence

    -

    About Ancient India itself – I know almost nothing, so not a person who can comment on it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    About Ancient India itself – I know almost nothing, so not a person who can comment on it.
     
    There's a book which makes the claim that there was intense exchange and mutual influence between ancient Greek and ancient Indian philosophy:
    https://www.amazon.de/Shape-Ancient-Thought-Comparative-Philosophies/dp/1581152035
    Haven't read it myself. Maybe you can and tell us if it's plausible.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. @Dmitry
    I think it is possible there is even some influence, as De Morgan, Babbage and Boole were obsessed with Ancient India.

    If you see Wikipedia article for De Morgan, it says:

    In the introduction to this book, he acknowledged being aware of the Indian tradition of logic, although it is not known whether this had any influence on his own work.

     

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustus_De_Morgan#London_University/


    For Babbage, it says:

    Mary Boole, the wife of Babbage's collaborator George Boole claimed that there was profound influence — via her uncle George Everest — of Indian thought in general and Indian logic, in particular, on him and on George Boole, as well as on Augustus De Morgan:

     

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Babbage#Influence



    -


    About Ancient India itself - I know almost nothing, so not a person who can comment on it.

    About Ancient India itself – I know almost nothing, so not a person who can comment on it.

    There’s a book which makes the claim that there was intense exchange and mutual influence between ancient Greek and ancient Indian philosophy:

    https://www.amazon.de/Shape-Ancient-Thought-Comparative-Philosophies/dp/1581152035

    Haven’t read it myself. Maybe you can and tell us if it’s plausible.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry
    But there's no symbolic logic in Ancient Greece, or subtle findings, in this area.

    Greatest philosopher, Plato, really has almost nothing to say in this area (except some common sense).

    Aristotle just seems to have categorized basic common sense reasoning processes.

    If I was in the 1850s, and writing a symbolic logic, I would be more interested in Ancient India (whether they have created something more interesting).

    History of logic is interesting as an area where there was almost no progress for thousands of years. Until slowly from around the beginning of the 19th century.

    Yet by beginning of the 20th century, it's one of the most fashionable topics in the world and they are making large advancements.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. utu says:

    These citations about Mary Bool and others are completely inconsequential.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry
    There's not direct link in the work (India could have not existed, and Boole would still write his logic). The stuff I now found out pioneered by De Morgan seems very simple in 2018, and which are covered in the first pages of any textbook. These guys did not need any historical inspiration to develop this.

    But the fact is, if you were in the middle of the 19th century, there's nothing interesting in this subject in Ancient Greece, but the possibility there was more advanced development in logic in Ancient India, and that seems recognized by these guys.

    I would not be surprised if Aristotle's influence, especially after theologians have become obsessed with it, was even oppressive on the development of the topic. It's an area where historically development arrives much later than other topics - especially considering its intuitive simplicity by comparison, it is historically strange how late it is.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. @utu

    50% of subjects exhibited an IQ above the average
     
    Very profound. Earth shattering.

    Very profound. Earth shattering.

    The way the results are presented in the abstract is indeed very awkward, perhaps reflecting the authors’ non-native English. Looking at the IQ categories reported in the study it turns out that “average” is 91-110, while “above average” is 111 and above. So 50% had IQs above 110.

    The averages for the 4 “pathological” groups [article published in 1974] were:

    non-feminine homosexuals– 110.4

    feminine homosexuals — 113.7

    genetically male transsexuals — 106.6

    hypogonadotropic eunuchoids — 109.7

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. @songbird
    In all seriousness, I would expect it to be lower, based on IQ being partly a proxy for brain health.

    There is some evidence that some disorders such a hyperfrontality contribute to intelligence.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. Dmitry says:
    @German_reader

    About Ancient India itself – I know almost nothing, so not a person who can comment on it.
     
    There's a book which makes the claim that there was intense exchange and mutual influence between ancient Greek and ancient Indian philosophy:
    https://www.amazon.de/Shape-Ancient-Thought-Comparative-Philosophies/dp/1581152035
    Haven't read it myself. Maybe you can and tell us if it's plausible.

    But there’s no symbolic logic in Ancient Greece, or subtle findings, in this area.

    Greatest philosopher, Plato, really has almost nothing to say in this area (except some common sense).

    Aristotle just seems to have categorized basic common sense reasoning processes.

    If I was in the 1850s, and writing a symbolic logic, I would be more interested in Ancient India (whether they have created something more interesting).

    History of logic is interesting as an area where there was almost no progress for thousands of years. Until slowly from around the beginning of the 19th century.

    Yet by beginning of the 20th century, it’s one of the most fashionable topics in the world and they are making large advancements.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. Dmitry says:
    @utu
    These citations about Mary Bool and others are completely inconsequential.

    There’s not direct link in the work (India could have not existed, and Boole would still write his logic). The stuff I now found out pioneered by De Morgan seems very simple in 2018, and which are covered in the first pages of any textbook. These guys did not need any historical inspiration to develop this.

    But the fact is, if you were in the middle of the 19th century, there’s nothing interesting in this subject in Ancient Greece, but the possibility there was more advanced development in logic in Ancient India, and that seems recognized by these guys.

    I would not be surprised if Aristotle’s influence, especially after theologians have become obsessed with it, was even oppressive on the development of the topic. It’s an area where historically development arrives much later than other topics – especially considering its intuitive simplicity by comparison, it is historically strange how late it is.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu

    it is historically strange how late it is
     
    BS. Stop. Nothing compares to the developments in logic by Greeks. Just forget about it. You are just parroting anti-Western deconstructionist ideas. Anything is good to bring the Greeks down. Including giving ancient Egypt to Nigerians and claiming that Aristotle get everything from Alexandria library which btw was established until after his death. You are much more reasonable than Bliss but are serving the same master. Jews after 2500 years still can't recover from humiliation and ridicule they suffered from their encounter with a superior civilization of Greece. The deconstructionism of Greek accomplishments all stems from this hurt feeling experience.

    In addition, the traditional five-member Indian syllogism, though deductively valid, has repetitions that are unnecessary to its logical validity. As a result, some commentators see the traditional Indian syllogism as a rhetorical form that is entirely natural in many cultures of the world, and yet not as a logical form—not in the sense that all logically unnecessary elements have been omitted for the sake of analysis. (wiki)
     

    However, Dignaga (c 480-540 AD) is sometimes said to have developed a formal syllogism,[9] and it was through him and his successor, Dharmakirti, that Buddhist logic reached its height; it is contested whether their analysis actually constitutes a formal syllogistic system. (wiki)
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. utu says:
    @Dmitry
    There's not direct link in the work (India could have not existed, and Boole would still write his logic). The stuff I now found out pioneered by De Morgan seems very simple in 2018, and which are covered in the first pages of any textbook. These guys did not need any historical inspiration to develop this.

    But the fact is, if you were in the middle of the 19th century, there's nothing interesting in this subject in Ancient Greece, but the possibility there was more advanced development in logic in Ancient India, and that seems recognized by these guys.

    I would not be surprised if Aristotle's influence, especially after theologians have become obsessed with it, was even oppressive on the development of the topic. It's an area where historically development arrives much later than other topics - especially considering its intuitive simplicity by comparison, it is historically strange how late it is.

    it is historically strange how late it is

    BS. Stop. Nothing compares to the developments in logic by Greeks. Just forget about it. You are just parroting anti-Western deconstructionist ideas. Anything is good to bring the Greeks down. Including giving ancient Egypt to Nigerians and claiming that Aristotle get everything from Alexandria library which btw was established until after his death. You are much more reasonable than Bliss but are serving the same master. Jews after 2500 years still can’t recover from humiliation and ridicule they suffered from their encounter with a superior civilization of Greece. The deconstructionism of Greek accomplishments all stems from this hurt feeling experience.

    In addition, the traditional five-member Indian syllogism, though deductively valid, has repetitions that are unnecessary to its logical validity. As a result, some commentators see the traditional Indian syllogism as a rhetorical form that is entirely natural in many cultures of the world, and yet not as a logical form—not in the sense that all logically unnecessary elements have been omitted for the sake of analysis. (wiki)

    However, Dignaga (c 480-540 AD) is sometimes said to have developed a formal syllogism,[9] and it was through him and his successor, Dharmakirti, that Buddhist logic reached its height; it is contested whether their analysis actually constitutes a formal syllogistic system. (wiki)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry

    BS. Stop. Nothing compares to the developments in logic by Greeks. Just forget about it. You are just parroting anti-Western deconstructionist ideas. Anything is good to bring the Greeks down. Including giving ancient Egypt to Nigerians and claiming that Aristotle get everything from Alexandria library which btw was established until after his death.
     
    What developments in logic? There's no symbolic logic. And nothing interesting from Ancient Greek logic in textbooks, beyond a small box on the first page, repeating common sense (syllogisms).

    Neither is there anything directly from Ancient India. But it seems were a little more (although still not much) development.

    And the people who created the field in 19th century, had this sense according to their wife.


    You are much more reasonable than Bliss but are serving the same master. Jews after 2500 years still can’t recover from humiliation and ridicule they suffered from their encounter with a superior civilization of Greece. The deconstructionism of Greek accomplishments all stems from this hurt feeling experience.

     

    This is funniest comment. Utu not everything is about Jews (although I can predict every discussion with you will end up with Jews).

    In fact it is boring when every topic somehow is about Jews, even for someone who is interested in that topic. (i.e. actual Jews).

    Jewish culture itself became Hellenized, and any ruins of their buildings in Israel, I have visited personally and can post photos of from my phone - it's all just Greek columns.

    Jewish logicians do not exist until the 20th century and they were secular men.
    , @Anon
    A good discussion here: https://circulosemiotico.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/historyofformall00boch.pdf#page=450 with a handy summary on page 446 (of the text; that's page 480 of the pdf). Indian logic represents a formalization of thinking but with significant disadvantages compared to Western logic, most notably the complete absence of variables.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. Dmitry says:
    @utu

    it is historically strange how late it is
     
    BS. Stop. Nothing compares to the developments in logic by Greeks. Just forget about it. You are just parroting anti-Western deconstructionist ideas. Anything is good to bring the Greeks down. Including giving ancient Egypt to Nigerians and claiming that Aristotle get everything from Alexandria library which btw was established until after his death. You are much more reasonable than Bliss but are serving the same master. Jews after 2500 years still can't recover from humiliation and ridicule they suffered from their encounter with a superior civilization of Greece. The deconstructionism of Greek accomplishments all stems from this hurt feeling experience.

    In addition, the traditional five-member Indian syllogism, though deductively valid, has repetitions that are unnecessary to its logical validity. As a result, some commentators see the traditional Indian syllogism as a rhetorical form that is entirely natural in many cultures of the world, and yet not as a logical form—not in the sense that all logically unnecessary elements have been omitted for the sake of analysis. (wiki)
     

    However, Dignaga (c 480-540 AD) is sometimes said to have developed a formal syllogism,[9] and it was through him and his successor, Dharmakirti, that Buddhist logic reached its height; it is contested whether their analysis actually constitutes a formal syllogistic system. (wiki)
     

    BS. Stop. Nothing compares to the developments in logic by Greeks. Just forget about it. You are just parroting anti-Western deconstructionist ideas. Anything is good to bring the Greeks down. Including giving ancient Egypt to Nigerians and claiming that Aristotle get everything from Alexandria library which btw was established until after his death.

    What developments in logic? There’s no symbolic logic. And nothing interesting from Ancient Greek logic in textbooks, beyond a small box on the first page, repeating common sense (syllogisms).

    Neither is there anything directly from Ancient India. But it seems were a little more (although still not much) development.

    And the people who created the field in 19th century, had this sense according to their wife.

    You are much more reasonable than Bliss but are serving the same master. Jews after 2500 years still can’t recover from humiliation and ridicule they suffered from their encounter with a superior civilization of Greece. The deconstructionism of Greek accomplishments all stems from this hurt feeling experience.

    This is funniest comment. Utu not everything is about Jews (although I can predict every discussion with you will end up with Jews).

    In fact it is boring when every topic somehow is about Jews, even for someone who is interested in that topic. (i.e. actual Jews).

    Jewish culture itself became Hellenized, and any ruins of their buildings in Israel, I have visited personally and can post photos of from my phone – it’s all just Greek columns.

    Jewish logicians do not exist until the 20th century and they were secular men.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry

    Jewish culture itself became Hellenized, and any ruins of their buildings in Israel, I have visited personally and can post photos of from my phone – it’s all just Greek columns.

     

    How look Ancient Jewish ruins I visited in Israel.

    Photo by myself in Israel earlier this year.

    (Wonder what this text says)

    https://i.imgur.com/mVE44oP.jpg

    https://i.imgur.com/t1BqrWp.jpg
    , @utu

    What developments in logic? There’s no symbolic logic. And nothing interesting from Ancient Greek logic in textbooks, beyond a small box on the first page, repeating common sense (syllogisms).
     
    You are a simpleton ignoramus and proud of it. Perhaps you should stay with subjects you know something about like expensive shoes your uncle collects.

    But if you want open your obscurantist mind of the post-sovok child of privilege you can read what actually Aristotle contribution to logic are here:

    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-logic/

    And take a peek at Prior Analytics

    https://books.google.com/books?id=E2xhDwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=prior+analytics&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwirsNHZlbbcAhWSc98KHRn5CaEQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=prior%20analytics&f=false
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. Dmitry says:
    @Dmitry

    BS. Stop. Nothing compares to the developments in logic by Greeks. Just forget about it. You are just parroting anti-Western deconstructionist ideas. Anything is good to bring the Greeks down. Including giving ancient Egypt to Nigerians and claiming that Aristotle get everything from Alexandria library which btw was established until after his death.
     
    What developments in logic? There's no symbolic logic. And nothing interesting from Ancient Greek logic in textbooks, beyond a small box on the first page, repeating common sense (syllogisms).

    Neither is there anything directly from Ancient India. But it seems were a little more (although still not much) development.

    And the people who created the field in 19th century, had this sense according to their wife.


    You are much more reasonable than Bliss but are serving the same master. Jews after 2500 years still can’t recover from humiliation and ridicule they suffered from their encounter with a superior civilization of Greece. The deconstructionism of Greek accomplishments all stems from this hurt feeling experience.

     

    This is funniest comment. Utu not everything is about Jews (although I can predict every discussion with you will end up with Jews).

    In fact it is boring when every topic somehow is about Jews, even for someone who is interested in that topic. (i.e. actual Jews).

    Jewish culture itself became Hellenized, and any ruins of their buildings in Israel, I have visited personally and can post photos of from my phone - it's all just Greek columns.

    Jewish logicians do not exist until the 20th century and they were secular men.

    Jewish culture itself became Hellenized, and any ruins of their buildings in Israel, I have visited personally and can post photos of from my phone – it’s all just Greek columns.

    How look Ancient Jewish ruins I visited in Israel.

    Photo by myself in Israel earlier this year.

    (Wonder what this text says)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. Anon[202] • Disclaimer says:
    @utu

    it is historically strange how late it is
     
    BS. Stop. Nothing compares to the developments in logic by Greeks. Just forget about it. You are just parroting anti-Western deconstructionist ideas. Anything is good to bring the Greeks down. Including giving ancient Egypt to Nigerians and claiming that Aristotle get everything from Alexandria library which btw was established until after his death. You are much more reasonable than Bliss but are serving the same master. Jews after 2500 years still can't recover from humiliation and ridicule they suffered from their encounter with a superior civilization of Greece. The deconstructionism of Greek accomplishments all stems from this hurt feeling experience.

    In addition, the traditional five-member Indian syllogism, though deductively valid, has repetitions that are unnecessary to its logical validity. As a result, some commentators see the traditional Indian syllogism as a rhetorical form that is entirely natural in many cultures of the world, and yet not as a logical form—not in the sense that all logically unnecessary elements have been omitted for the sake of analysis. (wiki)
     

    However, Dignaga (c 480-540 AD) is sometimes said to have developed a formal syllogism,[9] and it was through him and his successor, Dharmakirti, that Buddhist logic reached its height; it is contested whether their analysis actually constitutes a formal syllogistic system. (wiki)
     

    A good discussion here: https://circulosemiotico.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/historyofformall00boch.pdf#page=450 with a handy summary on page 446 (of the text; that’s page 480 of the pdf). Indian logic represents a formalization of thinking but with significant disadvantages compared to Western logic, most notably the complete absence of variables.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry
    Thanks - it's difficult to understand this text.

    But the conclusion seems that it is less developed than Greek development of logic in some areas (?).

    But that


    and some theorems in the domain of* relational logic such
    as did not develop in the west till Frege and Russell
     
    It's for relations, exactly why you need write down symbols.

    Once they start doing this in the 19th century, it becomes very clear they can write the relation as a predicate and with variables, inside a quantifier. Mathematical logic arrives very late in history though, considering that even the Ancient world is becoming aware of these topics.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. utu says:
    @Dmitry

    BS. Stop. Nothing compares to the developments in logic by Greeks. Just forget about it. You are just parroting anti-Western deconstructionist ideas. Anything is good to bring the Greeks down. Including giving ancient Egypt to Nigerians and claiming that Aristotle get everything from Alexandria library which btw was established until after his death.
     
    What developments in logic? There's no symbolic logic. And nothing interesting from Ancient Greek logic in textbooks, beyond a small box on the first page, repeating common sense (syllogisms).

    Neither is there anything directly from Ancient India. But it seems were a little more (although still not much) development.

    And the people who created the field in 19th century, had this sense according to their wife.


    You are much more reasonable than Bliss but are serving the same master. Jews after 2500 years still can’t recover from humiliation and ridicule they suffered from their encounter with a superior civilization of Greece. The deconstructionism of Greek accomplishments all stems from this hurt feeling experience.

     

    This is funniest comment. Utu not everything is about Jews (although I can predict every discussion with you will end up with Jews).

    In fact it is boring when every topic somehow is about Jews, even for someone who is interested in that topic. (i.e. actual Jews).

    Jewish culture itself became Hellenized, and any ruins of their buildings in Israel, I have visited personally and can post photos of from my phone - it's all just Greek columns.

    Jewish logicians do not exist until the 20th century and they were secular men.

    What developments in logic? There’s no symbolic logic. And nothing interesting from Ancient Greek logic in textbooks, beyond a small box on the first page, repeating common sense (syllogisms).

    You are a simpleton ignoramus and proud of it. Perhaps you should stay with subjects you know something about like expensive shoes your uncle collects.

    But if you want open your obscurantist mind of the post-sovok child of privilege you can read what actually Aristotle contribution to logic are here:

    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-logic/

    And take a peek at Prior Analytics

    https://books.google.com/books?id=E2xhDwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=prior+analytics&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwirsNHZlbbcAhWSc98KHRn5CaEQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=prior%20analytics&f=false

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry
    Writing insults is not helping to make me agree with you, although nice to see we can change the topic from Jews.

    I can still remember textbook of mathematical logic for computer science. Around first page - that Aristotle's logic extremely limited,- quantified syllogisms, relied on two premises and a conclusion.

    Aristotle's system did not even include basic properties of disjunctions [(a v b) & ¬a) ⇒ b]
    I.e. not accepted until medieval times (and of course writing any symbols are not until the 19th century).
    -


    Entire textbooks are only covering things invented in the 19th century and 20th century up to set theory.

    Now there may be revisionist articles by historians of philosophy that discover interesting things in Aristotle, but this is not symbolic logics (some 2200 years later), which is when progress began again.

    There is no symbolic logic in Aristotle or Ancient Greece. All symbolic logics we are using in any practical purposes, is from 19th century onwards.

    Question whether Ancient India had anything more complicated is open (it seems there is no symbolic logic in Ancient India either, but someone argues grammarian Panini has some conclusions rediscovered in the 20th century).

    -

    The interesting question raised is why logic developed so late (only in the 19th century), after 2200 years.

    Influence of Aristotle (a great proto-logician for his time, but obsolete one for the modern world) could have been even oppressive. In the 18th century, there are people - like Kant - still saying logic is complete because Aristotle has written about it (yet the subject has not begun to develop its interesting aspects or even written symbolically yet).

    By beginning of the 20th century, it suddenly is one of the most fashionable topics in the world (this is probably also a symptom that it has been delayed relative to other topics).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. Dmitry says:
    @utu

    What developments in logic? There’s no symbolic logic. And nothing interesting from Ancient Greek logic in textbooks, beyond a small box on the first page, repeating common sense (syllogisms).
     
    You are a simpleton ignoramus and proud of it. Perhaps you should stay with subjects you know something about like expensive shoes your uncle collects.

    But if you want open your obscurantist mind of the post-sovok child of privilege you can read what actually Aristotle contribution to logic are here:

    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-logic/

    And take a peek at Prior Analytics

    https://books.google.com/books?id=E2xhDwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=prior+analytics&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwirsNHZlbbcAhWSc98KHRn5CaEQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=prior%20analytics&f=false

    Writing insults is not helping to make me agree with you, although nice to see we can change the topic from Jews.

    I can still remember textbook of mathematical logic for computer science. Around first page – that Aristotle’s logic extremely limited,- quantified syllogisms, relied on two premises and a conclusion.

    Aristotle’s system did not even include basic properties of disjunctions [(a v b) & ¬a) ⇒ b]
    I.e. not accepted until medieval times (and of course writing any symbols are not until the 19th century).
    -

    Entire textbooks are only covering things invented in the 19th century and 20th century up to set theory.

    Now there may be revisionist articles by historians of philosophy that discover interesting things in Aristotle, but this is not symbolic logics (some 2200 years later), which is when progress began again.

    There is no symbolic logic in Aristotle or Ancient Greece. All symbolic logics we are using in any practical purposes, is from 19th century onwards.

    Question whether Ancient India had anything more complicated is open (it seems there is no symbolic logic in Ancient India either, but someone argues grammarian Panini has some conclusions rediscovered in the 20th century).

    -

    The interesting question raised is why logic developed so late (only in the 19th century), after 2200 years.

    Influence of Aristotle (a great proto-logician for his time, but obsolete one for the modern world) could have been even oppressive. In the 18th century, there are people – like Kant – still saying logic is complete because Aristotle has written about it (yet the subject has not begun to develop its interesting aspects or even written symbolically yet).

    By beginning of the 20th century, it suddenly is one of the most fashionable topics in the world (this is probably also a symptom that it has been delayed relative to other topics).

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    What is there to disjunction that Aristotle would not know? Would he think F v F might be T? Or that F v T might not be T? Or that T v T might be F? Get real. The law of excluded middle is central to Aristotle.

    The principle of excluded middle, along with its complement, the law of non-contradiction (the second of the three classic laws of thought), are correlates of the law of identity (the first of these laws).
     

    The earliest known formulation is in Aristotle's discussion of the principle of non-contradiction, first proposed in On Interpretation,[1] where he says that of two contradictory propositions (i.e. where one proposition is the negation of the other) one must be true, and the other false.[2] He also states it as a principle in the Metaphysics book 3, saying that it is necessary in every case to affirm or deny,[3] and that it is impossible that there should be anything between the two parts of a contradiction
     

    Aristotle wrote that ambiguity can arise from the use of ambiguous names, but cannot exist in the facts themselves:

    It is impossible, then, that "being a man" should mean precisely "not being a man", if "man" not only signifies something about one subject but also has one significance. ... And it will not be possible to be and not to be the same thing, except in virtue of an ambiguity, just as if one whom we call "man", and others were to call "not-man"; but the point in question is not this, whether the same thing can at the same time be and not be a man in name, but whether it can be in fact. (Metaphysics 4.4, W.D. Ross (trans.), GBWW 8, 525–526).
     
    Aristotle's assertion that "...it will not be possible to be and not to be the same thing", which would be written in propositional logic as ¬(P ∧ ¬P), is a statement modern logicians could call the law of excluded middle (P ∨ ¬P), as distribution of the negation of Aristotle's assertion makes them equivalent, regardless that the former claims that no statement is both true and false, while the latter requires that any statement is either true or false.

    However, Aristotle also writes, "since it is impossible that contradictories should be at the same time true of the same thing, obviously contraries also cannot belong at the same time to the same thing" (Book IV, CH 6, p. 531). He then proposes that "there cannot be an intermediate between contradictories, but of one subject we must either affirm or deny any one predicate" (Book IV, CH 7, p. 531). In the context of Aristotle's traditional logic, this is a remarkably precise statement of the law of excluded middle, P ∨ ¬P.
     
    You seem to have a fetish of symbolic logic. There is really nothing to it. It is trivial. Boolean algebra as Boole has conceive it is a waste of time. A search for foundations of mathematic in logic was abandoned. Frege's program was abandoned as well as that of Russel's and Whitehead's. Axiomatic Peano's approach and Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory were adopted as foundations of mathematics from which whole mathematics can be built using Aristotelian logic. There is no other logic used to build the whole of our knowledge.

    However just as Aristotle would make qualifications that some logical reasoning can't be used to predict some future events, some mathematicians raised the question whether the law of excluded middle could be used in all possible situations. For example L.E.J. Brouwer advocated that only constructive proofs should be used and reductio ad absurdum proofs only when in principle a constructive proof could be thought of.

    In classical mathematics there occur non-constructive or indirect existence proofs, which intuitionists do not accept. For example, to prove there exists an n such that P(n), the classical mathematician may deduce a contradiction from the assumption for all n, not P(n). Under both the classical and the intuitionistic logic, by reductio ad absurdum this gives not for all n, not P(n). The classical logic allows this result to be transformed into there exists an n such that P(n), but not in general the intuitionistic... the classical meaning, that somewhere in the completed infinite totality of the natural numbers there occurs an n such that P(n), is not available to him, since he does not conceive the natural numbers as a completed totality
     
    Symbolic logic and truth tables that every undergrad is exposed to in computer engineering or programming class is trivial. There is nothing to it. This is just a convenient tool which is not used when people do actual thinking. Yeah, that's a ticket - actual thinking! Try it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. Dmitry says:
    @Anon
    A good discussion here: https://circulosemiotico.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/historyofformall00boch.pdf#page=450 with a handy summary on page 446 (of the text; that's page 480 of the pdf). Indian logic represents a formalization of thinking but with significant disadvantages compared to Western logic, most notably the complete absence of variables.

    Thanks – it’s difficult to understand this text.

    But the conclusion seems that it is less developed than Greek development of logic in some areas (?).

    But that

    and some theorems in the domain of* relational logic such
    as did not develop in the west till Frege and Russell

    It’s for relations, exactly why you need write down symbols.

    Once they start doing this in the 19th century, it becomes very clear they can write the relation as a predicate and with variables, inside a quantifier. Mathematical logic arrives very late in history though, considering that even the Ancient world is becoming aware of these topics.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. Anonymous[276] • Disclaimer says:
    @notanon

    How is this a good thing
     
    maximizes synergy, encourages innovation, puts men on the moon etc

    this is where the origin of liberalism
     
    yes, oops

    maximizes synergy, encourages innovation, puts men on the moon etc

    What’s the basis for this claim?

    Did Yuri Gagarin only manage to orbit the Earth and not land on the moon because Russia was Orthodox?

    Read More
    • Replies: @notanon

    Did Yuri Gagarin only manage to orbit the Earth and not land on the moon because Russia was Orthodox?
     
    industrial revolution started at the epicenter of this process - correlation is possibly causation
    , @Philip Owen
    Captured German scientists had less to do with the Soviet Space programme than the US one but there was plenty of German technology involved. Peenemunde was in the East.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. Anonymous[276] • Disclaimer says:
    @notanon

    begins in ancient Greece ca. 800-600 B.C
     
    Cleisthenes' reforms may have had the same effect on Athens as the Church ban on cousin marriage

    (in the interval between the break up of the old clan structure and before the new clan structure had solidified)

    Cleisthenes increased the number of tribes from 4 to 10.

    Read More
    • Replies: @notanon
    right and in the process of changing the system banned marriage within the original tribes
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. utu says:
    @Dmitry
    Writing insults is not helping to make me agree with you, although nice to see we can change the topic from Jews.

    I can still remember textbook of mathematical logic for computer science. Around first page - that Aristotle's logic extremely limited,- quantified syllogisms, relied on two premises and a conclusion.

    Aristotle's system did not even include basic properties of disjunctions [(a v b) & ¬a) ⇒ b]
    I.e. not accepted until medieval times (and of course writing any symbols are not until the 19th century).
    -


    Entire textbooks are only covering things invented in the 19th century and 20th century up to set theory.

    Now there may be revisionist articles by historians of philosophy that discover interesting things in Aristotle, but this is not symbolic logics (some 2200 years later), which is when progress began again.

    There is no symbolic logic in Aristotle or Ancient Greece. All symbolic logics we are using in any practical purposes, is from 19th century onwards.

    Question whether Ancient India had anything more complicated is open (it seems there is no symbolic logic in Ancient India either, but someone argues grammarian Panini has some conclusions rediscovered in the 20th century).

    -

    The interesting question raised is why logic developed so late (only in the 19th century), after 2200 years.

    Influence of Aristotle (a great proto-logician for his time, but obsolete one for the modern world) could have been even oppressive. In the 18th century, there are people - like Kant - still saying logic is complete because Aristotle has written about it (yet the subject has not begun to develop its interesting aspects or even written symbolically yet).

    By beginning of the 20th century, it suddenly is one of the most fashionable topics in the world (this is probably also a symptom that it has been delayed relative to other topics).

    What is there to disjunction that Aristotle would not know? Would he think F v F might be T? Or that F v T might not be T? Or that T v T might be F? Get real. The law of excluded middle is central to Aristotle.

    The principle of excluded middle, along with its complement, the law of non-contradiction (the second of the three classic laws of thought), are correlates of the law of identity (the first of these laws).

    The earliest known formulation is in Aristotle’s discussion of the principle of non-contradiction, first proposed in On Interpretation,[1] where he says that of two contradictory propositions (i.e. where one proposition is the negation of the other) one must be true, and the other false.[2] He also states it as a principle in the Metaphysics book 3, saying that it is necessary in every case to affirm or deny,[3] and that it is impossible that there should be anything between the two parts of a contradiction

    Aristotle wrote that ambiguity can arise from the use of ambiguous names, but cannot exist in the facts themselves:

    It is impossible, then, that “being a man” should mean precisely “not being a man”, if “man” not only signifies something about one subject but also has one significance. … And it will not be possible to be and not to be the same thing, except in virtue of an ambiguity, just as if one whom we call “man”, and others were to call “not-man”; but the point in question is not this, whether the same thing can at the same time be and not be a man in name, but whether it can be in fact. (Metaphysics 4.4, W.D. Ross (trans.), GBWW 8, 525–526).

    Aristotle’s assertion that “…it will not be possible to be and not to be the same thing”, which would be written in propositional logic as ¬(P ∧ ¬P), is a statement modern logicians could call the law of excluded middle (P ∨ ¬P), as distribution of the negation of Aristotle’s assertion makes them equivalent, regardless that the former claims that no statement is both true and false, while the latter requires that any statement is either true or false.

    However, Aristotle also writes, “since it is impossible that contradictories should be at the same time true of the same thing, obviously contraries also cannot belong at the same time to the same thing” (Book IV, CH 6, p. 531). He then proposes that “there cannot be an intermediate between contradictories, but of one subject we must either affirm or deny any one predicate” (Book IV, CH 7, p. 531). In the context of Aristotle’s traditional logic, this is a remarkably precise statement of the law of excluded middle, P ∨ ¬P.

    You seem to have a fetish of symbolic logic. There is really nothing to it. It is trivial. Boolean algebra as Boole has conceive it is a waste of time. A search for foundations of mathematic in logic was abandoned. Frege’s program was abandoned as well as that of Russel’s and Whitehead’s. Axiomatic Peano’s approach and Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory were adopted as foundations of mathematics from which whole mathematics can be built using Aristotelian logic. There is no other logic used to build the whole of our knowledge.

    However just as Aristotle would make qualifications that some logical reasoning can’t be used to predict some future events, some mathematicians raised the question whether the law of excluded middle could be used in all possible situations. For example L.E.J. Brouwer advocated that only constructive proofs should be used and reductio ad absurdum proofs only when in principle a constructive proof could be thought of.

    In classical mathematics there occur non-constructive or indirect existence proofs, which intuitionists do not accept. For example, to prove there exists an n such that P(n), the classical mathematician may deduce a contradiction from the assumption for all n, not P(n). Under both the classical and the intuitionistic logic, by reductio ad absurdum this gives not for all n, not P(n). The classical logic allows this result to be transformed into there exists an n such that P(n), but not in general the intuitionistic… the classical meaning, that somewhere in the completed infinite totality of the natural numbers there occurs an n such that P(n), is not available to him, since he does not conceive the natural numbers as a completed totality

    Symbolic logic and truth tables that every undergrad is exposed to in computer engineering or programming class is trivial. There is nothing to it. This is just a convenient tool which is not used when people do actual thinking. Yeah, that’s a ticket – actual thinking! Try it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry

    What is there to disjunction that Aristotle would not know? Would he think F v F might be T? Or that F v T might not be T? Or that T v T might be F? Get real. The law of excluded middle is central to Aristotle.

     

    His proposal of law of excluded middle uses a disjunction (and a lot of his arguments, in all his works, use on disjunctions).

    Disjunctions themselves are understood by most three year olds, and everyone who understands the meaning of the word "or". And logical processes according to disjunctions itself, may possibly even exist in corvids, octopuses, and cleverer dogs.

    Aristotle was a genius - of course he knows the implications of word "or" and many of his famous theories rely on reasoning using it. But it's not part of his syllogisms, and above syllogism itself was not introduced until early medieval times. (This syllogism first mentioned in Boethius - De Hypotheticis Syllogismis, where he has to rewrite it awkwardly as a conditional to make it match Aristotle's constrictive schema and lack of disjunction).


    You seem to have a fetish of symbolic logic.

     

    See example above. Add the symbol "v" and you don't have to be Boethius to rewrite this syllogism in Aristotle's schema, from conditional, and to awkwardly redescribe a logical step everyone uses.

    There's nothing intellectual to use symbols - symbols are just a tool.

    For example, Aristotle has endless difficult discussions about relations. Nowadays we usually describe relations most easily in terms of sets - each type of relation you can describe as a set in half a line, you can drink a litre of beer, read it again (or rewrite it as a diagram if you prefer), and still university undergraduate student will be less muddled about how the different logical relations work, than one of the greatest geniuses of the Ancient world in his famous text.

    People are now doing this in programming languages, who have not had even a basic course in set theory at university.

    Likewise, I can go faster than Usain Bolt, not through any special ability - all I need is a tool like a car.


    foundations of mathematics from which whole mathematics can be built using Aristotelian logic. There is no other logic used to build the whole of our knowledge.
     
    Don't confuse finger pointing at the moon, for the moon itself.

    Logical reasoning is found in all humans, and arguably predates human race and could be observed in some animals..

    Logic and study of logic are two different things, and you don't need the latter to use the former.

    In the Ancient World, Aristotle is one of the first people to point his finger at this moon, and see it as topic interesting to study. From a historical perspective, it's extremely impressive what has done Aristotle, but not from a practical one for a modern man.

    He is able to describe simple patterns of reasoning, while other areas (like clear reasoning about relations) cannot be done in his format.

    Philosophers and theologians are subsequently using syllogisms to write their arguments more clearly, but you could remove this use of Aristotle's format, and their arguments would not be different. E.g. Hume sometimes uses syllogisms to express his argument, sometimes not (you could rewrite the former as the latter, and it would not make any less sense - simply be less clear).

    It's only around 19th and 20th century when people start to study logic in a symbolic way, rapidly progressing and for first time discovering things which are not intuitively known, such as, you mention above in a larger narrative, in relation to maths - impossibility of logicist program without axioms. But also many other subtle discoveries discovered about how logic works.

    Main practical benefit of the work is not as independent field of discovery, but simply as a practical and engineering tool (which we use with no interesting relation to real maths), but which is powerful precisely because of simplicity and clarity of using symbols, and which allows very mentally ordinary people to build complicated and consistent systems.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. notanon says:
    @Anonymous

    maximizes synergy, encourages innovation, puts men on the moon etc
     
    What's the basis for this claim?

    Did Yuri Gagarin only manage to orbit the Earth and not land on the moon because Russia was Orthodox?

    Did Yuri Gagarin only manage to orbit the Earth and not land on the moon because Russia was Orthodox?

    industrial revolution started at the epicenter of this process – correlation is possibly causation

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous coward

    industrial revolution
     
    No such thing. The Russian Urals were heavily industrialized back in Peter I's time. (Complete with factories and a huge proletarian class.) But the industrial system was present in Russia even earlier. The first Russian industrialist was born in 1488. (Stroganov, by the way, like the eponymous beef.)

    Russia's industry was almost always tied with the state-sponsored military-industrial complex, though, so Western historians ignore this huge chunk of history. (Apparently, unless consumer goods are involved, it's not "real" industry according to self-serving Anglo historians. Go figure.)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. notanon says:
    @Anonymous
    Cleisthenes increased the number of tribes from 4 to 10.

    right and in the process of changing the system banned marriage within the original tribes

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. @notanon

    Did Yuri Gagarin only manage to orbit the Earth and not land on the moon because Russia was Orthodox?
     
    industrial revolution started at the epicenter of this process - correlation is possibly causation

    industrial revolution

    No such thing. The Russian Urals were heavily industrialized back in Peter I’s time. (Complete with factories and a huge proletarian class.) But the industrial system was present in Russia even earlier. The first Russian industrialist was born in 1488. (Stroganov, by the way, like the eponymous beef.)

    Russia’s industry was almost always tied with the state-sponsored military-industrial complex, though, so Western historians ignore this huge chunk of history. (Apparently, unless consumer goods are involved, it’s not “real” industry according to self-serving Anglo historians. Go figure.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @notanon
    the agricultural revolution that was the foundation for the industrial revolution started in and around the same anglo-dutch epicenter many centuries earlier
    , @Philip Owen
    English guns made the difference in 1612.

    And yes, consumer goods are more important. What else is technology for but to improve people's lives. Military power is fascist.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. gate666 says:
    @Jaakko Raipala
    You mean the same Soviet Communist Party that legalized homosexuality, idolized free love, tried to abolish marriage altogether, legalized and promoted abortion, promoted rape of the oppressor class women by the oppressed..?

    https://www.rbth.com/history/328265-russian-sexual-revolution

    The 1960s Western sexual revolution is exactly the same as the Russian sexual revolution following 1917. If you resurrected Lenin or Trotsky from 1917 and showed them the modern West, they'd be amazed that the West is turning into a communist society without a violent revolution. Later under Stalin the Soviet Union started rejecting the original communist values but the original communism was indeed the same ideology that has taken over the West now.

    The only trick that was pulled on the West was American influence equating the right-wing with "free markets" which is why we now have practically Bolshevik parties pretending to be "right-wing". Any of our monarchists and nationalists from 1917 would find it ridiculous that there are now people who think that capitalism and free markets are "right-wing". The right-wing was the side of the old agrarian social bonds between royalty, clergy, landowners and peasants and supporting capitalism wasn't "right-wing".

    nonsense lenin opposed free love.

    Read More
    • Replies: @notanon
    he may have opposed it but not successfully cos the full poz was applied to the USSR after the revolution - it was only stopped after the consequences became too obvious to ignore
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. @Anatoly Karlin
    I am not a particularly strong supporter of this theory, as both hbd*chick and Jayman would confirm.

    I think literacy, IQ, and climate/agriculture explain almost everything. E.g., for Greece: http://www.unz.com/akarlin/ancient-greeks-not-geniuses/

    However, the phenomena they describe are real, and certainly cannot have hindered Europe's success. This must have especially contributed favorably to the Dutch developing most of the institutions of modern capitalism during the 16-17th centuries.

    Your text is not convincing, either. I am not too interested in IQ debates, and within, as well without that paradigm, I don’t see how one can explain the birth of Greek culture that had revolutionized the world & is, in many respects, the basis of global civilization.

    First a few points: I’m writing in a politically correct notation (BCE/CE to avoid our bias BC/AD); I know that, theoretically, one cannot “prove” that a product of one culture is “higher” or “better” than some work from another, simply because there in no common referential frame (even within one culture, there is no “proof”- as George Steiner had said in his magisterial “Tolstoy or Dostoevsky”, if you don’t see that Tolstoy’s “Anna Karenina” is greater, more human & richer work than Flaubert’s “Mme Bovary” (the same topic, female adultery)- then you are just deaf to mental-emotional-spiritual “tonalities” & nothing more can be said about it).

    In the case of old Greeks, we may summarize their achievement from 700-200 BCE (of course, and later, but I just don’t won’t to mess with Christianity, Romans, whatnot…). The only rivals are Chinese, Indian, Middle Eastern & Egyptian civilizations.

    In the field of sciences, Greeks invented science as a unified field of knowledge. Mathematical proof & systematic scientific thinking are their achievements, as testified by Euclid’s “Elements”, one of the most influential books ever written. Archimedes with his many contributions (among them integral calculus) remains among top 3-5 world mathematicians, while Pythagoras is basically a god of mathematics and Eratosthenes (along with Indians, the calculated the earth’s circumference) is a father of geography….. All “ethnic” math traditions lag behind Greek, even Indian one, which had had some uncanny advantages that later Europeans have modified & developed.

    Also heliocentric system (only Greeks) etc. etc. Chinese medicine was probably more developed (see Needham’s magnum opus), but Greek one was not bad- actually, perhaps better than Egyptian & close to Chinese and Indian.

    Philosophy. All others have a limited range of thought & and are mostly commenters of their sacred texts. In Greece, we have truly different schools of thought that cover what we now call materialism, objective and subjective idealism, skepticism, stoicism, empiricism, relativism, philosophy of language, political philosophy, aesthetics, psychology, elements of social philosophy, ethics,… It is true that other great civilizations have elements of that (Arthashastra, Chu Hsi, ..)- but there is nowhere such a wealth of ideas that later developed in global world- evolution (all Ionian cosmologies are evolutionary), democracy, fascism, eugenics, physical education, feminism, complete education for body, emotions & mind (Plato), mathematized cosmos (Pythagoras), cosmopolitanism (stoics, but Socrates, too), intellectual questioning of slavery, logic (Plato, then finally Aristotle), ….

    Literature. Apart from great epics of India, which are culturally different, evidently Greek literature has some universal masterpieces that remain world classics, especially tragedy (which was unknown outside of Greek world); lyric poetry cannot be compared with Chinese or Hindu because these genres are too entangled with the structure of language.

    As for history, Thucydides remains a classic historian, not inferior to any other anywhere & anytime.

    Visual arts. Putting aside early stylizations, it is evident that Greek sculpture is so superior that Chinese & Indian & Assyrian are basically a joke when we put them alongside Greek achievement:

    Chinese sculpture

    https://www.google.com/search?q=chinese+sculpture&client=firefox-b&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwie7JqlvbfcAhXPZFAKHbXMBVEQ_AUICigB&biw=1480&bih=712

    Indian sculpture

    https://www.google.com/search?q=indian+sculpture&client=firefox-b&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiLpoy-vbfcAhVMPFAKHTBBBhsQ_AUICigB&biw=1480&bih=712

    Greek sculpture

    https://www.google.com/search?q=greek+sculpture&client=firefox-b&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwik2OnZvbfcAhULLlAKHSNNDlkQ_AUICigB&biw=1480&bih=712

    Of course, everyone is free to disagree, but others are short, fat, comic, without individuality, clumsy,… Whatever.

    And if you add Alexander the Great, what then remains of others?

    Greece is the basis of the Western culture (unfortunately, and the gay thing), and Western culture is the world global culture; Greek super-achievers still remain somewhere on the top of many disciplines: Phidias, Plato, Aristotle, Homer, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Pythagoras, Archimedes, Hippocrates, Euclid, Alex the Great, Thucydides, … They created scientific terminology which is in use even in modern disciplines (chromodynamics, topology, genetics, ..).

    What could have been done more?

    Read More
    • Agree: utu
    • Replies: @Talha
    I’d have to agree here, pound for pound, the Greeks produced more and probably the most varied and most influential in terms of mathematics, literature, etc. Other cultures produced a lot as well, but did not have as wide an influence. A lot of this of course due to the fact that the inheritors of Greek influences would go on to conquer much of the world and spread that inherited culture, as can be seen in things like the architecture of capital buildings as far as South America.

    And they set pretty high standards for others to meet as far as quality.

    Pretty phenomenal.

    Peace.

    , @utu
    Euclid's Elements is modern. One could use it as a textbook in school. Also, all mathematical theorizing (meta-mathematics) begins there. The axiomatic approach. How to construct mathematical theory.
    , @Anon
    I agree with most of your comment. But with respect to they created scientific terminology which is in use even in modern disciplines it is more that the people who created these disciplines in the 18th or 19th centuries, or earlier in some cases, used the Greek language as a source for root words.
    , @AaronB
    Is it just me, or do the Indian sculptures seem so much richer, more complex, more philosophical, and more spiritual?

    The Greek sculpture seem to merely glorify the physical body - to glorify the physical world.

    Plato would not approve.
    , @Bliss
    Like much of Greek culture, Greek sculpture (and architecture) is indebted to Egypt. So is Greek religion, philosophy, mathematics etc. If Greece is the mother of western civilization (which it is) then Egypt is it’s grandmother.

    The Greek statues in that link are more realistic compared to the indian and chinese, but they are monotonous in their infatuation with naked athletic bodies. The Chinese and Indian sculpture is far more diverse and interesting.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. Talha says:
    @Bardon Kaldian
    Your text is not convincing, either. I am not too interested in IQ debates, and within, as well without that paradigm, I don't see how one can explain the birth of Greek culture that had revolutionized the world & is, in many respects, the basis of global civilization.

    First a few points: I'm writing in a politically correct notation (BCE/CE to avoid our bias BC/AD); I know that, theoretically, one cannot "prove" that a product of one culture is "higher" or "better" than some work from another, simply because there in no common referential frame (even within one culture, there is no "proof"- as George Steiner had said in his magisterial "Tolstoy or Dostoevsky", if you don't see that Tolstoy's "Anna Karenina" is greater, more human & richer work than Flaubert's "Mme Bovary" (the same topic, female adultery)- then you are just deaf to mental-emotional-spiritual "tonalities" & nothing more can be said about it).

    In the case of old Greeks, we may summarize their achievement from 700-200 BCE (of course, and later, but I just don't won't to mess with Christianity, Romans, whatnot...). The only rivals are Chinese, Indian, Middle Eastern & Egyptian civilizations.

    In the field of sciences, Greeks invented science as a unified field of knowledge. Mathematical proof & systematic scientific thinking are their achievements, as testified by Euclid's "Elements", one of the most influential books ever written. Archimedes with his many contributions (among them integral calculus) remains among top 3-5 world mathematicians, while Pythagoras is basically a god of mathematics and Eratosthenes (along with Indians, the calculated the earth's circumference) is a father of geography..... All "ethnic" math traditions lag behind Greek, even Indian one, which had had some uncanny advantages that later Europeans have modified & developed.

    Also heliocentric system (only Greeks) etc. etc. Chinese medicine was probably more developed (see Needham's magnum opus), but Greek one was not bad- actually, perhaps better than Egyptian & close to Chinese and Indian.

    Philosophy. All others have a limited range of thought & and are mostly commenters of their sacred texts. In Greece, we have truly different schools of thought that cover what we now call materialism, objective and subjective idealism, skepticism, stoicism, empiricism, relativism, philosophy of language, political philosophy, aesthetics, psychology, elements of social philosophy, ethics,... It is true that other great civilizations have elements of that (Arthashastra, Chu Hsi, ..)- but there is nowhere such a wealth of ideas that later developed in global world- evolution (all Ionian cosmologies are evolutionary), democracy, fascism, eugenics, physical education, feminism, complete education for body, emotions & mind (Plato), mathematized cosmos (Pythagoras), cosmopolitanism (stoics, but Socrates, too), intellectual questioning of slavery, logic (Plato, then finally Aristotle), ....

    Literature. Apart from great epics of India, which are culturally different, evidently Greek literature has some universal masterpieces that remain world classics, especially tragedy (which was unknown outside of Greek world); lyric poetry cannot be compared with Chinese or Hindu because these genres are too entangled with the structure of language.

    As for history, Thucydides remains a classic historian, not inferior to any other anywhere & anytime.

    Visual arts. Putting aside early stylizations, it is evident that Greek sculpture is so superior that Chinese & Indian & Assyrian are basically a joke when we put them alongside Greek achievement:

    Chinese sculpture

    https://www.google.com/search?q=chinese+sculpture&client=firefox-b&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwie7JqlvbfcAhXPZFAKHbXMBVEQ_AUICigB&biw=1480&bih=712

    Indian sculpture

    https://www.google.com/search?q=indian+sculpture&client=firefox-b&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiLpoy-vbfcAhVMPFAKHTBBBhsQ_AUICigB&biw=1480&bih=712

    Greek sculpture

    https://www.google.com/search?q=greek+sculpture&client=firefox-b&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwik2OnZvbfcAhULLlAKHSNNDlkQ_AUICigB&biw=1480&bih=712

    Of course, everyone is free to disagree, but others are short, fat, comic, without individuality, clumsy,... Whatever.

    And if you add Alexander the Great, what then remains of others?

    Greece is the basis of the Western culture (unfortunately, and the gay thing), and Western culture is the world global culture; Greek super-achievers still remain somewhere on the top of many disciplines: Phidias, Plato, Aristotle, Homer, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Pythagoras, Archimedes, Hippocrates, Euclid, Alex the Great, Thucydides, ... They created scientific terminology which is in use even in modern disciplines (chromodynamics, topology, genetics, ..).

    What could have been done more?

    I’d have to agree here, pound for pound, the Greeks produced more and probably the most varied and most influential in terms of mathematics, literature, etc. Other cultures produced a lot as well, but did not have as wide an influence. A lot of this of course due to the fact that the inheritors of Greek influences would go on to conquer much of the world and spread that inherited culture, as can be seen in things like the architecture of capital buildings as far as South America.

    And they set pretty high standards for others to meet as far as quality.

    Pretty phenomenal.

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. notanon says:
    @anonymous coward

    industrial revolution
     
    No such thing. The Russian Urals were heavily industrialized back in Peter I's time. (Complete with factories and a huge proletarian class.) But the industrial system was present in Russia even earlier. The first Russian industrialist was born in 1488. (Stroganov, by the way, like the eponymous beef.)

    Russia's industry was almost always tied with the state-sponsored military-industrial complex, though, so Western historians ignore this huge chunk of history. (Apparently, unless consumer goods are involved, it's not "real" industry according to self-serving Anglo historians. Go figure.)

    the agricultural revolution that was the foundation for the industrial revolution started in and around the same anglo-dutch epicenter many centuries earlier

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous coward
    Did you even read my post? There is no such thing as an "industrial revolution". It's just a pile of self-serving malarkey by Anglo historians about why their industry is "real" industry and industry from other countries doesn't "really count".

    Comparatively speaking, England was a latecomer. Sweden and then Russia were there first.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. notanon says:
    @gate666
    nonsense lenin opposed free love.

    he may have opposed it but not successfully cos the full poz was applied to the USSR after the revolution – it was only stopped after the consequences became too obvious to ignore

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. @notanon
    the agricultural revolution that was the foundation for the industrial revolution started in and around the same anglo-dutch epicenter many centuries earlier

    Did you even read my post? There is no such thing as an “industrial revolution”. It’s just a pile of self-serving malarkey by Anglo historians about why their industry is “real” industry and industry from other countries doesn’t “really count”.

    Comparatively speaking, England was a latecomer. Sweden and then Russia were there first.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    Come on.

    You don't think there's anything notable about the steam engine, flying shuttle, spinning frame, mechanized loom, or Bessemer converter?

    All invented in England, and in a relatively short time period.

    The main argument against an English industrial revolution I'd think would be an earlier one in the Low Countries based on the intensive exploitation of peat and wind for power. This industrial efflorescence stalled after the Dutch had dug up and burned a tenth of their country.

    The Low Countries also never mechanized textile production, nor did they invent or make use of heat engines (partly because their mining engineering was more advanced, thus they had no need of engines to pump out water).

    , @notanon

    There is no such thing as an “industrial revolution”.
     

    Sweden and then Russia were there first.
     
    Scandinavia, Holland etc are all part of that Hajnal region - "Anglo" in this context really means the whole NW region.
    , @Philip Owen
    So why was Sweden known as hungry Sweden and why weren't the common people of both countries known for their wealth. The Russian serfs were known for famine. They were not known for iron cooking pots, plows or even hand pumps for their wells.

    You are displaying the Russian inferiority complex rather well. Focus on what was done well by Russia not denying others achievements.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. @anonymous coward
    Did you even read my post? There is no such thing as an "industrial revolution". It's just a pile of self-serving malarkey by Anglo historians about why their industry is "real" industry and industry from other countries doesn't "really count".

    Comparatively speaking, England was a latecomer. Sweden and then Russia were there first.

    Come on.

    You don’t think there’s anything notable about the steam engine, flying shuttle, spinning frame, mechanized loom, or Bessemer converter?

    All invented in England, and in a relatively short time period.

    The main argument against an English industrial revolution I’d think would be an earlier one in the Low Countries based on the intensive exploitation of peat and wind for power. This industrial efflorescence stalled after the Dutch had dug up and burned a tenth of their country.

    The Low Countries also never mechanized textile production, nor did they invent or make use of heat engines (partly because their mining engineering was more advanced, thus they had no need of engines to pump out water).

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous coward

    You don’t think there’s anything notable about the steam engine, flying shuttle, spinning frame, mechanized loom, or Bessemer converter?
     
    I don't. These are incremental inventions based on concepts that existed for a long time already. The only (more or less) revolutionary invention was the conveyor belt, but that wasn't invented in Britain.


    The main argument against an English industrial revolution I’d think would be an earlier one in the Low Countries based on the intensive exploitation of peat and wind for power.
     
    This is a Russian factory, early 18th century:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3FP_M_387w

    Russia used hydropower extensively in that time, though. This

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/%D0%93%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B4%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%BF%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B4_2010_%281%29.JPG

    is actually an artificial lake created in the early 18th century by the dam that provided power to the factory.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. utu says:
    @Bardon Kaldian
    Your text is not convincing, either. I am not too interested in IQ debates, and within, as well without that paradigm, I don't see how one can explain the birth of Greek culture that had revolutionized the world & is, in many respects, the basis of global civilization.

    First a few points: I'm writing in a politically correct notation (BCE/CE to avoid our bias BC/AD); I know that, theoretically, one cannot "prove" that a product of one culture is "higher" or "better" than some work from another, simply because there in no common referential frame (even within one culture, there is no "proof"- as George Steiner had said in his magisterial "Tolstoy or Dostoevsky", if you don't see that Tolstoy's "Anna Karenina" is greater, more human & richer work than Flaubert's "Mme Bovary" (the same topic, female adultery)- then you are just deaf to mental-emotional-spiritual "tonalities" & nothing more can be said about it).

    In the case of old Greeks, we may summarize their achievement from 700-200 BCE (of course, and later, but I just don't won't to mess with Christianity, Romans, whatnot...). The only rivals are Chinese, Indian, Middle Eastern & Egyptian civilizations.

    In the field of sciences, Greeks invented science as a unified field of knowledge. Mathematical proof & systematic scientific thinking are their achievements, as testified by Euclid's "Elements", one of the most influential books ever written. Archimedes with his many contributions (among them integral calculus) remains among top 3-5 world mathematicians, while Pythagoras is basically a god of mathematics and Eratosthenes (along with Indians, the calculated the earth's circumference) is a father of geography..... All "ethnic" math traditions lag behind Greek, even Indian one, which had had some uncanny advantages that later Europeans have modified & developed.

    Also heliocentric system (only Greeks) etc. etc. Chinese medicine was probably more developed (see Needham's magnum opus), but Greek one was not bad- actually, perhaps better than Egyptian & close to Chinese and Indian.

    Philosophy. All others have a limited range of thought & and are mostly commenters of their sacred texts. In Greece, we have truly different schools of thought that cover what we now call materialism, objective and subjective idealism, skepticism, stoicism, empiricism, relativism, philosophy of language, political philosophy, aesthetics, psychology, elements of social philosophy, ethics,... It is true that other great civilizations have elements of that (Arthashastra, Chu Hsi, ..)- but there is nowhere such a wealth of ideas that later developed in global world- evolution (all Ionian cosmologies are evolutionary), democracy, fascism, eugenics, physical education, feminism, complete education for body, emotions & mind (Plato), mathematized cosmos (Pythagoras), cosmopolitanism (stoics, but Socrates, too), intellectual questioning of slavery, logic (Plato, then finally Aristotle), ....

    Literature. Apart from great epics of India, which are culturally different, evidently Greek literature has some universal masterpieces that remain world classics, especially tragedy (which was unknown outside of Greek world); lyric poetry cannot be compared with Chinese or Hindu because these genres are too entangled with the structure of language.

    As for history, Thucydides remains a classic historian, not inferior to any other anywhere & anytime.

    Visual arts. Putting aside early stylizations, it is evident that Greek sculpture is so superior that Chinese & Indian & Assyrian are basically a joke when we put them alongside Greek achievement:

    Chinese sculpture

    https://www.google.com/search?q=chinese+sculpture&client=firefox-b&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwie7JqlvbfcAhXPZFAKHbXMBVEQ_AUICigB&biw=1480&bih=712

    Indian sculpture

    https://www.google.com/search?q=indian+sculpture&client=firefox-b&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiLpoy-vbfcAhVMPFAKHTBBBhsQ_AUICigB&biw=1480&bih=712

    Greek sculpture

    https://www.google.com/search?q=greek+sculpture&client=firefox-b&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwik2OnZvbfcAhULLlAKHSNNDlkQ_AUICigB&biw=1480&bih=712

    Of course, everyone is free to disagree, but others are short, fat, comic, without individuality, clumsy,... Whatever.

    And if you add Alexander the Great, what then remains of others?

    Greece is the basis of the Western culture (unfortunately, and the gay thing), and Western culture is the world global culture; Greek super-achievers still remain somewhere on the top of many disciplines: Phidias, Plato, Aristotle, Homer, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Pythagoras, Archimedes, Hippocrates, Euclid, Alex the Great, Thucydides, ... They created scientific terminology which is in use even in modern disciplines (chromodynamics, topology, genetics, ..).

    What could have been done more?

    Euclid’s Elements is modern. One could use it as a textbook in school. Also, all mathematical theorizing (meta-mathematics) begins there. The axiomatic approach. How to construct mathematical theory.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. Anon[202] • Disclaimer says:
    @Bardon Kaldian
    Your text is not convincing, either. I am not too interested in IQ debates, and within, as well without that paradigm, I don't see how one can explain the birth of Greek culture that had revolutionized the world & is, in many respects, the basis of global civilization.

    First a few points: I'm writing in a politically correct notation (BCE/CE to avoid our bias BC/AD); I know that, theoretically, one cannot "prove" that a product of one culture is "higher" or "better" than some work from another, simply because there in no common referential frame (even within one culture, there is no "proof"- as George Steiner had said in his magisterial "Tolstoy or Dostoevsky", if you don't see that Tolstoy's "Anna Karenina" is greater, more human & richer work than Flaubert's "Mme Bovary" (the same topic, female adultery)- then you are just deaf to mental-emotional-spiritual "tonalities" & nothing more can be said about it).

    In the case of old Greeks, we may summarize their achievement from 700-200 BCE (of course, and later, but I just don't won't to mess with Christianity, Romans, whatnot...). The only rivals are Chinese, Indian, Middle Eastern & Egyptian civilizations.

    In the field of sciences, Greeks invented science as a unified field of knowledge. Mathematical proof & systematic scientific thinking are their achievements, as testified by Euclid's "Elements", one of the most influential books ever written. Archimedes with his many contributions (among them integral calculus) remains among top 3-5 world mathematicians, while Pythagoras is basically a god of mathematics and Eratosthenes (along with Indians, the calculated the earth's circumference) is a father of geography..... All "ethnic" math traditions lag behind Greek, even Indian one, which had had some uncanny advantages that later Europeans have modified & developed.

    Also heliocentric system (only Greeks) etc. etc. Chinese medicine was probably more developed (see Needham's magnum opus), but Greek one was not bad- actually, perhaps better than Egyptian & close to Chinese and Indian.

    Philosophy. All others have a limited range of thought & and are mostly commenters of their sacred texts. In Greece, we have truly different schools of thought that cover what we now call materialism, objective and subjective idealism, skepticism, stoicism, empiricism, relativism, philosophy of language, political philosophy, aesthetics, psychology, elements of social philosophy, ethics,... It is true that other great civilizations have elements of that (Arthashastra, Chu Hsi, ..)- but there is nowhere such a wealth of ideas that later developed in global world- evolution (all Ionian cosmologies are evolutionary), democracy, fascism, eugenics, physical education, feminism, complete education for body, emotions & mind (Plato), mathematized cosmos (Pythagoras), cosmopolitanism (stoics, but Socrates, too), intellectual questioning of slavery, logic (Plato, then finally Aristotle), ....

    Literature. Apart from great epics of India, which are culturally different, evidently Greek literature has some universal masterpieces that remain world classics, especially tragedy (which was unknown outside of Greek world); lyric poetry cannot be compared with Chinese or Hindu because these genres are too entangled with the structure of language.

    As for history, Thucydides remains a classic historian, not inferior to any other anywhere & anytime.

    Visual arts. Putting aside early stylizations, it is evident that Greek sculpture is so superior that Chinese & Indian & Assyrian are basically a joke when we put them alongside Greek achievement:

    Chinese sculpture

    https://www.google.com/search?q=chinese+sculpture&client=firefox-b&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwie7JqlvbfcAhXPZFAKHbXMBVEQ_AUICigB&biw=1480&bih=712

    Indian sculpture

    https://www.google.com/search?q=indian+sculpture&client=firefox-b&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiLpoy-vbfcAhVMPFAKHTBBBhsQ_AUICigB&biw=1480&bih=712

    Greek sculpture

    https://www.google.com/search?q=greek+sculpture&client=firefox-b&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwik2OnZvbfcAhULLlAKHSNNDlkQ_AUICigB&biw=1480&bih=712

    Of course, everyone is free to disagree, but others are short, fat, comic, without individuality, clumsy,... Whatever.

    And if you add Alexander the Great, what then remains of others?

    Greece is the basis of the Western culture (unfortunately, and the gay thing), and Western culture is the world global culture; Greek super-achievers still remain somewhere on the top of many disciplines: Phidias, Plato, Aristotle, Homer, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Pythagoras, Archimedes, Hippocrates, Euclid, Alex the Great, Thucydides, ... They created scientific terminology which is in use even in modern disciplines (chromodynamics, topology, genetics, ..).

    What could have been done more?

    I agree with most of your comment. But with respect to they created scientific terminology which is in use even in modern disciplines it is more that the people who created these disciplines in the 18th or 19th centuries, or earlier in some cases, used the Greek language as a source for root words.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. AaronB says:
    @Bardon Kaldian
    Your text is not convincing, either. I am not too interested in IQ debates, and within, as well without that paradigm, I don't see how one can explain the birth of Greek culture that had revolutionized the world & is, in many respects, the basis of global civilization.

    First a few points: I'm writing in a politically correct notation (BCE/CE to avoid our bias BC/AD); I know that, theoretically, one cannot "prove" that a product of one culture is "higher" or "better" than some work from another, simply because there in no common referential frame (even within one culture, there is no "proof"- as George Steiner had said in his magisterial "Tolstoy or Dostoevsky", if you don't see that Tolstoy's "Anna Karenina" is greater, more human & richer work than Flaubert's "Mme Bovary" (the same topic, female adultery)- then you are just deaf to mental-emotional-spiritual "tonalities" & nothing more can be said about it).

    In the case of old Greeks, we may summarize their achievement from 700-200 BCE (of course, and later, but I just don't won't to mess with Christianity, Romans, whatnot...). The only rivals are Chinese, Indian, Middle Eastern & Egyptian civilizations.

    In the field of sciences, Greeks invented science as a unified field of knowledge. Mathematical proof & systematic scientific thinking are their achievements, as testified by Euclid's "Elements", one of the most influential books ever written. Archimedes with his many contributions (among them integral calculus) remains among top 3-5 world mathematicians, while Pythagoras is basically a god of mathematics and Eratosthenes (along with Indians, the calculated the earth's circumference) is a father of geography..... All "ethnic" math traditions lag behind Greek, even Indian one, which had had some uncanny advantages that later Europeans have modified & developed.

    Also heliocentric system (only Greeks) etc. etc. Chinese medicine was probably more developed (see Needham's magnum opus), but Greek one was not bad- actually, perhaps better than Egyptian & close to Chinese and Indian.

    Philosophy. All others have a limited range of thought & and are mostly commenters of their sacred texts. In Greece, we have truly different schools of thought that cover what we now call materialism, objective and subjective idealism, skepticism, stoicism, empiricism, relativism, philosophy of language, political philosophy, aesthetics, psychology, elements of social philosophy, ethics,... It is true that other great civilizations have elements of that (Arthashastra, Chu Hsi, ..)- but there is nowhere such a wealth of ideas that later developed in global world- evolution (all Ionian cosmologies are evolutionary), democracy, fascism, eugenics, physical education, feminism, complete education for body, emotions & mind (Plato), mathematized cosmos (Pythagoras), cosmopolitanism (stoics, but Socrates, too), intellectual questioning of slavery, logic (Plato, then finally Aristotle), ....

    Literature. Apart from great epics of India, which are culturally different, evidently Greek literature has some universal masterpieces that remain world classics, especially tragedy (which was unknown outside of Greek world); lyric poetry cannot be compared with Chinese or Hindu because these genres are too entangled with the structure of language.

    As for history, Thucydides remains a classic historian, not inferior to any other anywhere & anytime.

    Visual arts. Putting aside early stylizations, it is evident that Greek sculpture is so superior that Chinese & Indian & Assyrian are basically a joke when we put them alongside Greek achievement:

    Chinese sculpture

    https://www.google.com/search?q=chinese+sculpture&client=firefox-b&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwie7JqlvbfcAhXPZFAKHbXMBVEQ_AUICigB&biw=1480&bih=712

    Indian sculpture

    https://www.google.com/search?q=indian+sculpture&client=firefox-b&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiLpoy-vbfcAhVMPFAKHTBBBhsQ_AUICigB&biw=1480&bih=712

    Greek sculpture

    https://www.google.com/search?q=greek+sculpture&client=firefox-b&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwik2OnZvbfcAhULLlAKHSNNDlkQ_AUICigB&biw=1480&bih=712

    Of course, everyone is free to disagree, but others are short, fat, comic, without individuality, clumsy,... Whatever.

    And if you add Alexander the Great, what then remains of others?

    Greece is the basis of the Western culture (unfortunately, and the gay thing), and Western culture is the world global culture; Greek super-achievers still remain somewhere on the top of many disciplines: Phidias, Plato, Aristotle, Homer, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Pythagoras, Archimedes, Hippocrates, Euclid, Alex the Great, Thucydides, ... They created scientific terminology which is in use even in modern disciplines (chromodynamics, topology, genetics, ..).

    What could have been done more?

    Is it just me, or do the Indian sculptures seem so much richer, more complex, more philosophical, and more spiritual?

    The Greek sculpture seem to merely glorify the physical body – to glorify the physical world.

    Plato would not approve.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    There's actually a lot of Greek influence in Indian art, stemming from this period: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Buddhist_art
    , @Dmitry
    Earlier Greek sculpture is not. But with, around time of Kritios in the 5th century, is the first kind of truly modern and realistic seeming sculpture - this usually seen by art historians as a decisive progress, which was not found in any earlier or contemporary civilizations.
    , @songbird
    I've always admired the Dying Gaul. (Roman copy, though it is) Surely, such a powerful depiction of mortality counts for something spiritual?

    Such a masterpiece does it seem to me, it is amazing to think that it was ever buried.
    , @Bardon Kaldian
    Which would be your preferred sex partner: this
    https://i.pinimg.com/736x/38/03/dc/3803dc0aafc977176ed3f1c8a9b31627--india-art-rajasthan-india.jpg

    or this one

    https://previews.123rf.com/images/orgasm4n/orgasm4n1112/orgasm4n111200001/11479263-cracked-face-of-female-greek-sculpture.jpg ?

    I know what would be my choice....

    As for spirituality, there is nothing evidently spiritual in Hindu sculptures. They're just fat.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. @Thorfinnsson
    Come on.

    You don't think there's anything notable about the steam engine, flying shuttle, spinning frame, mechanized loom, or Bessemer converter?

    All invented in England, and in a relatively short time period.

    The main argument against an English industrial revolution I'd think would be an earlier one in the Low Countries based on the intensive exploitation of peat and wind for power. This industrial efflorescence stalled after the Dutch had dug up and burned a tenth of their country.

    The Low Countries also never mechanized textile production, nor did they invent or make use of heat engines (partly because their mining engineering was more advanced, thus they had no need of engines to pump out water).

    You don’t think there’s anything notable about the steam engine, flying shuttle, spinning frame, mechanized loom, or Bessemer converter?

    I don’t. These are incremental inventions based on concepts that existed for a long time already. The only (more or less) revolutionary invention was the conveyor belt, but that wasn’t invented in Britain.

    The main argument against an English industrial revolution I’d think would be an earlier one in the Low Countries based on the intensive exploitation of peat and wind for power.

    This is a Russian factory, early 18th century:

    Russia used hydropower extensively in that time, though. This

    is actually an artificial lake created in the early 18th century by the dam that provided power to the factory.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth
    Hey, Karlin just told me that that same factory is still operational today, and is still the economic hub of the county. He also said that they have increased productivity 3.4% since the 1800's.
    , @Philip Owen
    And yet Russia lagged economically, technically and socially since at least the time of Ivan III. So what happened? A conspiracy by all other countries just against Russia?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. Anon[202] • Disclaimer says:
    @AaronB
    Is it just me, or do the Indian sculptures seem so much richer, more complex, more philosophical, and more spiritual?

    The Greek sculpture seem to merely glorify the physical body - to glorify the physical world.

    Plato would not approve.

    There’s actually a lot of Greek influence in Indian art, stemming from this period: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Buddhist_art

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    Right, Ghandaran art, but that was limited to northwest India and Afghanistan.

    There was even a Greek Buddhist kingdom in the region for a while, a successor state to Alexander the great. I find those lonely and isolated Greek kingdoms near central Asia fascinating.

    I actually think there was significant cultural exchange between India and the ancient world over many centuries - much of early Greek thought seems clearly influenced by India, while Mahayana Buddhism seems to have been influenced by early Christianity, in a kind of cultural circle.

    Still, the distinctive Greek contribution seems to have been the glorification of the body and the physical world - this is not the entirety of Greek culture, to be sure, and Greek culture was incredibly complex and syncretistic - but physical glorification seems to have been unique to Greece, and was the element most eagerly picked up later by the northern Europeans and developed into our modern world.

    If the Greeks were indeed Aryans, then it seems the distinctive Aryan genius has been the glorification of physicality.

    Which is not to say that Aryans are capable of nothing higher - merely that, left to itself, the Aryan genius seems to descend into mere physicality.

    The Jewish and Asian genius, left to itself, is perhaps overly spiritual, and needs a dose of Aryan physicality to balance things out.

    The Enlightenment seems to have been the native Aryan genius asserting itself against the domination of Eastern spirituality - and the result is the modern worlds glorification of all things physical, which everyone is beginning to agree has been a disaster.

    Perhaps the next stage in the evolution of world culture is to once again unite Aryan physicality with Eastern spirituality in a balanced and healthy while?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. AaronB says:
    @Anon
    There's actually a lot of Greek influence in Indian art, stemming from this period: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Buddhist_art

    Right, Ghandaran art, but that was limited to northwest India and Afghanistan.

    There was even a Greek Buddhist kingdom in the region for a while, a successor state to Alexander the great. I find those lonely and isolated Greek kingdoms near central Asia fascinating.

    I actually think there was significant cultural exchange between India and the ancient world over many centuries – much of early Greek thought seems clearly influenced by India, while Mahayana Buddhism seems to have been influenced by early Christianity, in a kind of cultural circle.

    Still, the distinctive Greek contribution seems to have been the glorification of the body and the physical world – this is not the entirety of Greek culture, to be sure, and Greek culture was incredibly complex and syncretistic – but physical glorification seems to have been unique to Greece, and was the element most eagerly picked up later by the northern Europeans and developed into our modern world.

    If the Greeks were indeed Aryans, then it seems the distinctive Aryan genius has been the glorification of physicality.

    Which is not to say that Aryans are capable of nothing higher – merely that, left to itself, the Aryan genius seems to descend into mere physicality.

    The Jewish and Asian genius, left to itself, is perhaps overly spiritual, and needs a dose of Aryan physicality to balance things out.

    The Enlightenment seems to have been the native Aryan genius asserting itself against the domination of Eastern spirituality – and the result is the modern worlds glorification of all things physical, which everyone is beginning to agree has been a disaster.

    Perhaps the next stage in the evolution of world culture is to once again unite Aryan physicality with Eastern spirituality in a balanced and healthy while?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Gandhara was one of the most important regions of India at the period; it is, for instance, most probably where Panini came from, and so its influence on general Indian art was probably substantial. Not being an art critic I'm not going to argue the degree of influence, though.

    If the Greeks were indeed Aryans, then it seems the distinctive Aryan genius has been the glorification of physicality.
     
    Vedic religion is practically the epitome of Aryanism. Even the Buddha came from one of the great Aryan clans, though you can say he was influenced by native traditions in some way.
    , @Hyperborean
    I think despite your rejection of the cultural framework of your society, you have not escaped it.

    For whatever reason, I think, in America it is popular to associate cultural traits and habits with large-scale continents or religions.

    Saying ''white people'' or ''Jews'' or ''Asians'' as like this or that.

    But you do not make more refined distinctions which could make your arguments at least somewhat plausible.

    I hear you often talk about 'whites' or 'muslims' or 'Jews' or 'Asians', but I don't see you really comprehend the differences between Askenazim vs Mizrahim, secular Jews vs religious Jews, NW Europeans vs S Europeans vs E Europeans vs Americans of European descent, East Asians vs Indians vs South-East Asians etc. very much.

    Nor changes in cultural periods.

    Perhaps then you would not make statements like this:

    If the Greeks were indeed Aryans, then it seems the distinctive Aryan genius has been the glorification of physicality.

    Which is not to say that Aryans are capable of nothing higher – merely that, left to itself, the Aryan genius seems to descend into mere physicality.

    The Jewish and Asian genius, left to itself, is perhaps overly spiritual, and needs a dose of Aryan physicality to balance things out.

     

    Although perhaps your worldview is tinted by the type of cultural endgoal you seem to desire?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. Dmitry says:
    @utu
    What is there to disjunction that Aristotle would not know? Would he think F v F might be T? Or that F v T might not be T? Or that T v T might be F? Get real. The law of excluded middle is central to Aristotle.

    The principle of excluded middle, along with its complement, the law of non-contradiction (the second of the three classic laws of thought), are correlates of the law of identity (the first of these laws).
     

    The earliest known formulation is in Aristotle's discussion of the principle of non-contradiction, first proposed in On Interpretation,[1] where he says that of two contradictory propositions (i.e. where one proposition is the negation of the other) one must be true, and the other false.[2] He also states it as a principle in the Metaphysics book 3, saying that it is necessary in every case to affirm or deny,[3] and that it is impossible that there should be anything between the two parts of a contradiction
     

    Aristotle wrote that ambiguity can arise from the use of ambiguous names, but cannot exist in the facts themselves:

    It is impossible, then, that "being a man" should mean precisely "not being a man", if "man" not only signifies something about one subject but also has one significance. ... And it will not be possible to be and not to be the same thing, except in virtue of an ambiguity, just as if one whom we call "man", and others were to call "not-man"; but the point in question is not this, whether the same thing can at the same time be and not be a man in name, but whether it can be in fact. (Metaphysics 4.4, W.D. Ross (trans.), GBWW 8, 525–526).
     
    Aristotle's assertion that "...it will not be possible to be and not to be the same thing", which would be written in propositional logic as ¬(P ∧ ¬P), is a statement modern logicians could call the law of excluded middle (P ∨ ¬P), as distribution of the negation of Aristotle's assertion makes them equivalent, regardless that the former claims that no statement is both true and false, while the latter requires that any statement is either true or false.

    However, Aristotle also writes, "since it is impossible that contradictories should be at the same time true of the same thing, obviously contraries also cannot belong at the same time to the same thing" (Book IV, CH 6, p. 531). He then proposes that "there cannot be an intermediate between contradictories, but of one subject we must either affirm or deny any one predicate" (Book IV, CH 7, p. 531). In the context of Aristotle's traditional logic, this is a remarkably precise statement of the law of excluded middle, P ∨ ¬P.
     
    You seem to have a fetish of symbolic logic. There is really nothing to it. It is trivial. Boolean algebra as Boole has conceive it is a waste of time. A search for foundations of mathematic in logic was abandoned. Frege's program was abandoned as well as that of Russel's and Whitehead's. Axiomatic Peano's approach and Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory were adopted as foundations of mathematics from which whole mathematics can be built using Aristotelian logic. There is no other logic used to build the whole of our knowledge.

    However just as Aristotle would make qualifications that some logical reasoning can't be used to predict some future events, some mathematicians raised the question whether the law of excluded middle could be used in all possible situations. For example L.E.J. Brouwer advocated that only constructive proofs should be used and reductio ad absurdum proofs only when in principle a constructive proof could be thought of.

    In classical mathematics there occur non-constructive or indirect existence proofs, which intuitionists do not accept. For example, to prove there exists an n such that P(n), the classical mathematician may deduce a contradiction from the assumption for all n, not P(n). Under both the classical and the intuitionistic logic, by reductio ad absurdum this gives not for all n, not P(n). The classical logic allows this result to be transformed into there exists an n such that P(n), but not in general the intuitionistic... the classical meaning, that somewhere in the completed infinite totality of the natural numbers there occurs an n such that P(n), is not available to him, since he does not conceive the natural numbers as a completed totality
     
    Symbolic logic and truth tables that every undergrad is exposed to in computer engineering or programming class is trivial. There is nothing to it. This is just a convenient tool which is not used when people do actual thinking. Yeah, that's a ticket - actual thinking! Try it.

    What is there to disjunction that Aristotle would not know? Would he think F v F might be T? Or that F v T might not be T? Or that T v T might be F? Get real. The law of excluded middle is central to Aristotle.

    His proposal of law of excluded middle uses a disjunction (and a lot of his arguments, in all his works, use on disjunctions).

    Disjunctions themselves are understood by most three year olds, and everyone who understands the meaning of the word “or”. And logical processes according to disjunctions itself, may possibly even exist in corvids, octopuses, and cleverer dogs.

    Aristotle was a genius – of course he knows the implications of word “or” and many of his famous theories rely on reasoning using it. But it’s not part of his syllogisms, and above syllogism itself was not introduced until early medieval times. (This syllogism first mentioned in Boethius – De Hypotheticis Syllogismis, where he has to rewrite it awkwardly as a conditional to make it match Aristotle’s constrictive schema and lack of disjunction).

    You seem to have a fetish of symbolic logic.

    See example above. Add the symbol “v” and you don’t have to be Boethius to rewrite this syllogism in Aristotle’s schema, from conditional, and to awkwardly redescribe a logical step everyone uses.

    There’s nothing intellectual to use symbols – symbols are just a tool.

    For example, Aristotle has endless difficult discussions about relations. Nowadays we usually describe relations most easily in terms of sets – each type of relation you can describe as a set in half a line, you can drink a litre of beer, read it again (or rewrite it as a diagram if you prefer), and still university undergraduate student will be less muddled about how the different logical relations work, than one of the greatest geniuses of the Ancient world in his famous text.

    People are now doing this in programming languages, who have not had even a basic course in set theory at university.

    Likewise, I can go faster than Usain Bolt, not through any special ability – all I need is a tool like a car.

    foundations of mathematics from which whole mathematics can be built using Aristotelian logic. There is no other logic used to build the whole of our knowledge.

    Don’t confuse finger pointing at the moon, for the moon itself.

    Logical reasoning is found in all humans, and arguably predates human race and could be observed in some animals..

    Logic and study of logic are two different things, and you don’t need the latter to use the former.

    In the Ancient World, Aristotle is one of the first people to point his finger at this moon, and see it as topic interesting to study. From a historical perspective, it’s extremely impressive what has done Aristotle, but not from a practical one for a modern man.

    He is able to describe simple patterns of reasoning, while other areas (like clear reasoning about relations) cannot be done in his format.

    Philosophers and theologians are subsequently using syllogisms to write their arguments more clearly, but you could remove this use of Aristotle’s format, and their arguments would not be different. E.g. Hume sometimes uses syllogisms to express his argument, sometimes not (you could rewrite the former as the latter, and it would not make any less sense – simply be less clear).

    It’s only around 19th and 20th century when people start to study logic in a symbolic way, rapidly progressing and for first time discovering things which are not intuitively known, such as, you mention above in a larger narrative, in relation to maths – impossibility of logicist program without axioms. But also many other subtle discoveries discovered about how logic works.

    Main practical benefit of the work is not as independent field of discovery, but simply as a practical and engineering tool (which we use with no interesting relation to real maths), but which is powerful precisely because of simplicity and clarity of using symbols, and which allows very mentally ordinary people to build complicated and consistent systems.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    Also, the law of excluded middle and the law of non-contradiction are logically invalid, as Bertrand Russell and others have shown and as Indian logicians have long known, and have probably functioned as a mental straitjacket on the European intellect despite their usefulness to engineering.

    Aristotelian logic is best appreciated in relation to the general Greek attitude to the physical world, as quite useful for engineering even if invalid and not exhaustive.
    , @utu
    Dmitri: Aristotle’s system did not even include basic properties of disjunctions

    utu: What is there to disjunction that Aristotle would not know? Would he think F v F might be T? Or that F v T might not be T? Or that T v T might be F? Get real. The law of excluded middle is central to Aristotle.

    Dmitri: Disjunctions themselves are understood by most three year olds, and everyone who understands the meaning of the word “or”. And logical processes according to disjunctions itself, may possibly even exist in corvids, octopuses, and cleverer dogs.

    I had to ignore the rest of your comment.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. Dmitry says:
    @AaronB
    Is it just me, or do the Indian sculptures seem so much richer, more complex, more philosophical, and more spiritual?

    The Greek sculpture seem to merely glorify the physical body - to glorify the physical world.

    Plato would not approve.

    Earlier Greek sculpture is not. But with, around time of Kritios in the 5th century, is the first kind of truly modern and realistic seeming sculpture – this usually seen by art historians as a decisive progress, which was not found in any earlier or contemporary civilizations.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    I concede your point, it is indeed an innovation - but whether it is an advance depends on whether you view the purpose of art as "realism".

    That is a long discussion - one can perhaps agree that Greek art introduced the glorification of the physical - what you mean by realism.

    Value judgements are an individual matter.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. AaronB says:
    @Dmitry

    What is there to disjunction that Aristotle would not know? Would he think F v F might be T? Or that F v T might not be T? Or that T v T might be F? Get real. The law of excluded middle is central to Aristotle.

     

    His proposal of law of excluded middle uses a disjunction (and a lot of his arguments, in all his works, use on disjunctions).

    Disjunctions themselves are understood by most three year olds, and everyone who understands the meaning of the word "or". And logical processes according to disjunctions itself, may possibly even exist in corvids, octopuses, and cleverer dogs.

    Aristotle was a genius - of course he knows the implications of word "or" and many of his famous theories rely on reasoning using it. But it's not part of his syllogisms, and above syllogism itself was not introduced until early medieval times. (This syllogism first mentioned in Boethius - De Hypotheticis Syllogismis, where he has to rewrite it awkwardly as a conditional to make it match Aristotle's constrictive schema and lack of disjunction).


    You seem to have a fetish of symbolic logic.

     

    See example above. Add the symbol "v" and you don't have to be Boethius to rewrite this syllogism in Aristotle's schema, from conditional, and to awkwardly redescribe a logical step everyone uses.

    There's nothing intellectual to use symbols - symbols are just a tool.

    For example, Aristotle has endless difficult discussions about relations. Nowadays we usually describe relations most easily in terms of sets - each type of relation you can describe as a set in half a line, you can drink a litre of beer, read it again (or rewrite it as a diagram if you prefer), and still university undergraduate student will be less muddled about how the different logical relations work, than one of the greatest geniuses of the Ancient world in his famous text.

    People are now doing this in programming languages, who have not had even a basic course in set theory at university.

    Likewise, I can go faster than Usain Bolt, not through any special ability - all I need is a tool like a car.


    foundations of mathematics from which whole mathematics can be built using Aristotelian logic. There is no other logic used to build the whole of our knowledge.
     
    Don't confuse finger pointing at the moon, for the moon itself.

    Logical reasoning is found in all humans, and arguably predates human race and could be observed in some animals..

    Logic and study of logic are two different things, and you don't need the latter to use the former.

    In the Ancient World, Aristotle is one of the first people to point his finger at this moon, and see it as topic interesting to study. From a historical perspective, it's extremely impressive what has done Aristotle, but not from a practical one for a modern man.

    He is able to describe simple patterns of reasoning, while other areas (like clear reasoning about relations) cannot be done in his format.

    Philosophers and theologians are subsequently using syllogisms to write their arguments more clearly, but you could remove this use of Aristotle's format, and their arguments would not be different. E.g. Hume sometimes uses syllogisms to express his argument, sometimes not (you could rewrite the former as the latter, and it would not make any less sense - simply be less clear).

    It's only around 19th and 20th century when people start to study logic in a symbolic way, rapidly progressing and for first time discovering things which are not intuitively known, such as, you mention above in a larger narrative, in relation to maths - impossibility of logicist program without axioms. But also many other subtle discoveries discovered about how logic works.

    Main practical benefit of the work is not as independent field of discovery, but simply as a practical and engineering tool (which we use with no interesting relation to real maths), but which is powerful precisely because of simplicity and clarity of using symbols, and which allows very mentally ordinary people to build complicated and consistent systems.

    Also, the law of excluded middle and the law of non-contradiction are logically invalid, as Bertrand Russell and others have shown and as Indian logicians have long known, and have probably functioned as a mental straitjacket on the European intellect despite their usefulness to engineering.

    Aristotelian logic is best appreciated in relation to the general Greek attitude to the physical world, as quite useful for engineering even if invalid and not exhaustive.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. Anon[202] • Disclaimer says:
    @AaronB
    Right, Ghandaran art, but that was limited to northwest India and Afghanistan.

    There was even a Greek Buddhist kingdom in the region for a while, a successor state to Alexander the great. I find those lonely and isolated Greek kingdoms near central Asia fascinating.

    I actually think there was significant cultural exchange between India and the ancient world over many centuries - much of early Greek thought seems clearly influenced by India, while Mahayana Buddhism seems to have been influenced by early Christianity, in a kind of cultural circle.

    Still, the distinctive Greek contribution seems to have been the glorification of the body and the physical world - this is not the entirety of Greek culture, to be sure, and Greek culture was incredibly complex and syncretistic - but physical glorification seems to have been unique to Greece, and was the element most eagerly picked up later by the northern Europeans and developed into our modern world.

    If the Greeks were indeed Aryans, then it seems the distinctive Aryan genius has been the glorification of physicality.

    Which is not to say that Aryans are capable of nothing higher - merely that, left to itself, the Aryan genius seems to descend into mere physicality.

    The Jewish and Asian genius, left to itself, is perhaps overly spiritual, and needs a dose of Aryan physicality to balance things out.

    The Enlightenment seems to have been the native Aryan genius asserting itself against the domination of Eastern spirituality - and the result is the modern worlds glorification of all things physical, which everyone is beginning to agree has been a disaster.

    Perhaps the next stage in the evolution of world culture is to once again unite Aryan physicality with Eastern spirituality in a balanced and healthy while?

    Gandhara was one of the most important regions of India at the period; it is, for instance, most probably where Panini came from, and so its influence on general Indian art was probably substantial. Not being an art critic I’m not going to argue the degree of influence, though.

    If the Greeks were indeed Aryans, then it seems the distinctive Aryan genius has been the glorification of physicality.

    Vedic religion is practically the epitome of Aryanism. Even the Buddha came from one of the great Aryan clans, though you can say he was influenced by native traditions in some way.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    I would agree that Greek artistic influence probably was substantial at some point - it may even have provided the primary stimulus for Indian art, as early Buddhism was opposed to depictions of the Buddha, like Islam.

    However, Indian art at its apogee was substantially different from Greek art, and more similar to medieval Christian art.

    Of course, Greek art was substantially influenced by Egyptian art.

    Vedic religion was, especially in its mature and sophisticated stage, highly syncretistic - certainly it did not remain merely at the level of Aryan nature Gods, as it started out. Buddhism also, of course.

    The Aryan genius can fly very high when it is open to foreign influences which correct its fundamentally materialistic orientation - indeed, Greek culture cannot be viewed without reference to the vast Oriental world it stood on the edge of and received constant influences from.

    Remember Herodotus and his "Greeks are as children compared to the Egyptians".

    So I'm not trying to knock Aryans - the Eastern genius needs balance in its own way and may be too "ethereal".

    I am trying to indicate possible courses for the next stage of world culture, and to highlight the possible origins of modern materialism, which is merely materialism ramified throughout every area of human life, in patterns that seem endemic to Aryan culture whenever it's genius asserts itself without foreign influences.

    Aryan culture may have an extremely important contribution to make to world culture - the emphasis on the physical - and other cultures may need this corrective balance, but it is worthwhile trying to understand its deficiencies in its pure form.

    And the sane can be said of any native culture in its pure form.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. AaronB says:
    @Dmitry
    Earlier Greek sculpture is not. But with, around time of Kritios in the 5th century, is the first kind of truly modern and realistic seeming sculpture - this usually seen by art historians as a decisive progress, which was not found in any earlier or contemporary civilizations.

    I concede your point, it is indeed an innovation – but whether it is an advance depends on whether you view the purpose of art as “realism”.

    That is a long discussion – one can perhaps agree that Greek art introduced the glorification of the physical – what you mean by realism.

    Value judgements are an individual matter.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Egyptian art can be remarkably realistic: https://art.thewalters.org/detail/35906 (that's just one example I found searching at random).

    Greek sculpture is certainly a development and one taken to a very high pitch, but it's obviously untrue to say either that it came from nowhere or that it was not copied elsewhere.

    , @Dmitry
    It's not just realism, but also gives sense of a much more subtle aesthetic and sophisticated breakthrough in the 5th century .

    http://www.mallonart.com/about/about/enlarge/pics/HumanFigure/Part01/kritiosBoy.jpg

    Compared to earlier Greek sculpture.

    6th century works still not much different from Egyptian.

    http://kemetexpert.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/NY-kouros-MMA-450x600.jpg

    Late 6th century, more realism, but still nothing like the same aesthetics.

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/04/0006MAN-Kouros2.jpg

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. songbird says:
    @AaronB
    Is it just me, or do the Indian sculptures seem so much richer, more complex, more philosophical, and more spiritual?

    The Greek sculpture seem to merely glorify the physical body - to glorify the physical world.

    Plato would not approve.

    I’ve always admired the Dying Gaul. (Roman copy, though it is) Surely, such a powerful depiction of mortality counts for something spiritual?

    Such a masterpiece does it seem to me, it is amazing to think that it was ever buried.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    I am also sympathetic to the Dying Gaul, and the Laocoon, but these are Hellenistic and a departure from the "classical" phase - more emotion and spirituality was beginning to penetrate Greek art, in contrast to the austerity of classical Greek art.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. Anon[202] • Disclaimer says:
    @AaronB
    I concede your point, it is indeed an innovation - but whether it is an advance depends on whether you view the purpose of art as "realism".

    That is a long discussion - one can perhaps agree that Greek art introduced the glorification of the physical - what you mean by realism.

    Value judgements are an individual matter.

    Egyptian art can be remarkably realistic: https://art.thewalters.org/detail/35906 (that’s just one example I found searching at random).

    Greek sculpture is certainly a development and one taken to a very high pitch, but it’s obviously untrue to say either that it came from nowhere or that it was not copied elsewhere.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. @AaronB
    Is it just me, or do the Indian sculptures seem so much richer, more complex, more philosophical, and more spiritual?

    The Greek sculpture seem to merely glorify the physical body - to glorify the physical world.

    Plato would not approve.

    Which would be your preferred sex partner: this

    or this one

    ?

    I know what would be my choice….

    As for spirituality, there is nothing evidently spiritual in Hindu sculptures. They’re just fat.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    How can I judge which sculpture I would rather have sex with - one is just a face.

    Indian sculpture is religious - it is necessarily spiritual. You may not think it is successful in transmitting spiritual qualities - but that is its explicit focus, as the explicit focus of Greek culture is the glories of the body.

    The great Buddhist and Hindu temples in India, as well as Angkor Wat (Indian artists), and the great structures in Java, are dazzling examples of religious art on a vast scale and have no parallels in ancient Greece.

    The temple at Paestum cannot rival Angkor Wat - but I think the only real agreement possible here is the focus of the respective traditions - one the body and realism, the other spirituality and idealism.

    What one prefers depends on ones assessment of the modern world and ones stance towards materialism.

    And that is a seperate discussion, and s long one.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. Dmitry says:
    @AaronB
    I concede your point, it is indeed an innovation - but whether it is an advance depends on whether you view the purpose of art as "realism".

    That is a long discussion - one can perhaps agree that Greek art introduced the glorification of the physical - what you mean by realism.

    Value judgements are an individual matter.

    It’s not just realism, but also gives sense of a much more subtle aesthetic and sophisticated breakthrough in the 5th century .

    Compared to earlier Greek sculpture.

    6th century works still not much different from Egyptian.

    Late 6th century, more realism, but still nothing like the same aesthetics.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    It seems that you are referring to technical advances - and I would agree with that.

    The Greeks did seem to make large advances in artistic technique, as in so much else. As is befitting a culture whose primary orientation is physical.

    But the spiritual and aesthetic quality - aesthetic understood as not merely excellence of technique but as capturing something indefinable - of Greek sculpture does not seem superior to Indian sculpture but merely to have a different focus, the glorification of the physical.

    Later Indian sculpture displays dazzling technique, but it may be that Greek technique played a role here.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. AaronB says:
    @Anon
    Gandhara was one of the most important regions of India at the period; it is, for instance, most probably where Panini came from, and so its influence on general Indian art was probably substantial. Not being an art critic I'm not going to argue the degree of influence, though.

    If the Greeks were indeed Aryans, then it seems the distinctive Aryan genius has been the glorification of physicality.
     
    Vedic religion is practically the epitome of Aryanism. Even the Buddha came from one of the great Aryan clans, though you can say he was influenced by native traditions in some way.

    I would agree that Greek artistic influence probably was substantial at some point – it may even have provided the primary stimulus for Indian art, as early Buddhism was opposed to depictions of the Buddha, like Islam.

    However, Indian art at its apogee was substantially different from Greek art, and more similar to medieval Christian art.

    Of course, Greek art was substantially influenced by Egyptian art.

    Vedic religion was, especially in its mature and sophisticated stage, highly syncretistic – certainly it did not remain merely at the level of Aryan nature Gods, as it started out. Buddhism also, of course.

    The Aryan genius can fly very high when it is open to foreign influences which correct its fundamentally materialistic orientation – indeed, Greek culture cannot be viewed without reference to the vast Oriental world it stood on the edge of and received constant influences from.

    Remember Herodotus and his “Greeks are as children compared to the Egyptians”.

    So I’m not trying to knock Aryans – the Eastern genius needs balance in its own way and may be too “ethereal”.

    I am trying to indicate possible courses for the next stage of world culture, and to highlight the possible origins of modern materialism, which is merely materialism ramified throughout every area of human life, in patterns that seem endemic to Aryan culture whenever it’s genius asserts itself without foreign influences.

    Aryan culture may have an extremely important contribution to make to world culture – the emphasis on the physical – and other cultures may need this corrective balance, but it is worthwhile trying to understand its deficiencies in its pure form.

    And the sane can be said of any native culture in its pure form.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry
    Early Ancient Indian culture was Aryan - the word is just Sanskrit for "noble".

    Contemporary era of Vedas texts, which was written by Aryans settled in Northern India - it is only Mycenaean civilization in Greece.

    Much later, classical Greece (which is the era we all fall in love with) - they are writing in Sanskrit things like Bhagavad Gita and Ramayana (i.e. books you can find in the bookshop and modern people still like reading translated).

    I have bought book of Vedic hymns in translation - it's very primitive religious hymns (and not something modern man will enjoy). But much later texts in India, contemporaneous with Classical Greece, are also obviously sophisticated literature - things like Bhagavad Gita.

    , @Anon

    I am trying to indicate possible courses for the next stage of world culture, and to highlight the possible origins of modern materialism, which is merely materialism ramified throughout every area of human life, in patterns that seem endemic to Aryan culture whenever it’s genius asserts itself without foreign influences.
     
    OK. That is what you are trying to do. What I was trying to do was to suggest that it is unfair to compare Greek art unfavorably to Indian art because the latter is in some degree a development on it in a different direction.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. AaronB says:
    @songbird
    I've always admired the Dying Gaul. (Roman copy, though it is) Surely, such a powerful depiction of mortality counts for something spiritual?

    Such a masterpiece does it seem to me, it is amazing to think that it was ever buried.

    I am also sympathetic to the Dying Gaul, and the Laocoon, but these are Hellenistic and a departure from the “classical” phase – more emotion and spirituality was beginning to penetrate Greek art, in contrast to the austerity of classical Greek art.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. Dmitry says:
    @AaronB
    I would agree that Greek artistic influence probably was substantial at some point - it may even have provided the primary stimulus for Indian art, as early Buddhism was opposed to depictions of the Buddha, like Islam.

    However, Indian art at its apogee was substantially different from Greek art, and more similar to medieval Christian art.

    Of course, Greek art was substantially influenced by Egyptian art.

    Vedic religion was, especially in its mature and sophisticated stage, highly syncretistic - certainly it did not remain merely at the level of Aryan nature Gods, as it started out. Buddhism also, of course.

    The Aryan genius can fly very high when it is open to foreign influences which correct its fundamentally materialistic orientation - indeed, Greek culture cannot be viewed without reference to the vast Oriental world it stood on the edge of and received constant influences from.

    Remember Herodotus and his "Greeks are as children compared to the Egyptians".

    So I'm not trying to knock Aryans - the Eastern genius needs balance in its own way and may be too "ethereal".

    I am trying to indicate possible courses for the next stage of world culture, and to highlight the possible origins of modern materialism, which is merely materialism ramified throughout every area of human life, in patterns that seem endemic to Aryan culture whenever it's genius asserts itself without foreign influences.

    Aryan culture may have an extremely important contribution to make to world culture - the emphasis on the physical - and other cultures may need this corrective balance, but it is worthwhile trying to understand its deficiencies in its pure form.

    And the sane can be said of any native culture in its pure form.

    Early Ancient Indian culture was Aryan – the word is just Sanskrit for “noble”.

    Contemporary era of Vedas texts, which was written by Aryans settled in Northern India – it is only Mycenaean civilization in Greece.

    Much later, classical Greece (which is the era we all fall in love with) – they are writing in Sanskrit things like Bhagavad Gita and Ramayana (i.e. books you can find in the bookshop and modern people still like reading translated).

    I have bought book of Vedic hymns in translation – it’s very primitive religious hymns (and not something modern man will enjoy). But much later texts in India, contemporaneous with Classical Greece, are also obviously sophisticated literature – things like Bhagavad Gita.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    Yes, the earliest Indian culture was Aryan - but it is quite primitive and not the glorious Indian culture of later times.

    That culture is syncretistic. I don't discount or downplay the Aryan contribution - but the pure Aryan element in Indian culture seems to be pagan nature Gods - a focus on the physical.

    Later, together with the native Indian genius, something utterly different emerges that is one of the glories of world culture.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. AaronB says:
    @Dmitry
    It's not just realism, but also gives sense of a much more subtle aesthetic and sophisticated breakthrough in the 5th century .

    http://www.mallonart.com/about/about/enlarge/pics/HumanFigure/Part01/kritiosBoy.jpg

    Compared to earlier Greek sculpture.

    6th century works still not much different from Egyptian.

    http://kemetexpert.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/NY-kouros-MMA-450x600.jpg

    Late 6th century, more realism, but still nothing like the same aesthetics.

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/04/0006MAN-Kouros2.jpg

    It seems that you are referring to technical advances – and I would agree with that.

    The Greeks did seem to make large advances in artistic technique, as in so much else. As is befitting a culture whose primary orientation is physical.

    But the spiritual and aesthetic quality – aesthetic understood as not merely excellence of technique but as capturing something indefinable – of Greek sculpture does not seem superior to Indian sculpture but merely to have a different focus, the glorification of the physical.

    Later Indian sculpture displays dazzling technique, but it may be that Greek technique played a role here.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. AaronB says:
    @Dmitry
    Early Ancient Indian culture was Aryan - the word is just Sanskrit for "noble".

    Contemporary era of Vedas texts, which was written by Aryans settled in Northern India - it is only Mycenaean civilization in Greece.

    Much later, classical Greece (which is the era we all fall in love with) - they are writing in Sanskrit things like Bhagavad Gita and Ramayana (i.e. books you can find in the bookshop and modern people still like reading translated).

    I have bought book of Vedic hymns in translation - it's very primitive religious hymns (and not something modern man will enjoy). But much later texts in India, contemporaneous with Classical Greece, are also obviously sophisticated literature - things like Bhagavad Gita.

    Yes, the earliest Indian culture was Aryan – but it is quite primitive and not the glorious Indian culture of later times.

    That culture is syncretistic. I don’t discount or downplay the Aryan contribution – but the pure Aryan element in Indian culture seems to be pagan nature Gods – a focus on the physical.

    Later, together with the native Indian genius, something utterly different emerges that is one of the glories of world culture.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry
    I think you are confusing words.

    Aryans who settled in Northern India, and wrote Vedic hymns - were a people and culture, originally from Andronovo (nowadays central Asia) - and their root would be similar to nomads who had settled earlier in Ancient Persia, with many overlapping words in the Sanskrit and Ancient Persian languages.

    Ancient Greek people and culture are highly divergent civilization, which experiences enormous culture shock when later Persians start expanding West direction in 6th century. (And well what happens between Greeks and Persians in the next century is one of the most epic episodes in history).

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. AaronB says:
    @Bardon Kaldian
    Which would be your preferred sex partner: this
    https://i.pinimg.com/736x/38/03/dc/3803dc0aafc977176ed3f1c8a9b31627--india-art-rajasthan-india.jpg

    or this one

    https://previews.123rf.com/images/orgasm4n/orgasm4n1112/orgasm4n111200001/11479263-cracked-face-of-female-greek-sculpture.jpg ?

    I know what would be my choice....

    As for spirituality, there is nothing evidently spiritual in Hindu sculptures. They're just fat.

    How can I judge which sculpture I would rather have sex with – one is just a face.

    Indian sculpture is religious – it is necessarily spiritual. You may not think it is successful in transmitting spiritual qualities – but that is its explicit focus, as the explicit focus of Greek culture is the glories of the body.

    The great Buddhist and Hindu temples in India, as well as Angkor Wat (Indian artists), and the great structures in Java, are dazzling examples of religious art on a vast scale and have no parallels in ancient Greece.

    The temple at Paestum cannot rival Angkor Wat – but I think the only real agreement possible here is the focus of the respective traditions – one the body and realism, the other spirituality and idealism.

    What one prefers depends on ones assessment of the modern world and ones stance towards materialism.

    And that is a seperate discussion, and s long one.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. Dmitry says:
    @AaronB
    Yes, the earliest Indian culture was Aryan - but it is quite primitive and not the glorious Indian culture of later times.

    That culture is syncretistic. I don't discount or downplay the Aryan contribution - but the pure Aryan element in Indian culture seems to be pagan nature Gods - a focus on the physical.

    Later, together with the native Indian genius, something utterly different emerges that is one of the glories of world culture.

    I think you are confusing words.

    Aryans who settled in Northern India, and wrote Vedic hymns – were a people and culture, originally from Andronovo (nowadays central Asia) – and their root would be similar to nomads who had settled earlier in Ancient Persia, with many overlapping words in the Sanskrit and Ancient Persian languages.

    Ancient Greek people and culture are highly divergent civilization, which experiences enormous culture shock when later Persians start expanding West direction in 6th century. (And well what happens between Greeks and Persians in the next century is one of the most epic episodes in history).

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    I believe Greeks are supposed to be Aryans as well, though, and to have migrated from the same region - the Doric invasions from the North, etc.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. Truth says:
    @anonymous coward

    You don’t think there’s anything notable about the steam engine, flying shuttle, spinning frame, mechanized loom, or Bessemer converter?
     
    I don't. These are incremental inventions based on concepts that existed for a long time already. The only (more or less) revolutionary invention was the conveyor belt, but that wasn't invented in Britain.


    The main argument against an English industrial revolution I’d think would be an earlier one in the Low Countries based on the intensive exploitation of peat and wind for power.
     
    This is a Russian factory, early 18th century:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3FP_M_387w

    Russia used hydropower extensively in that time, though. This

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/%D0%93%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B4%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%BF%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B4_2010_%281%29.JPG

    is actually an artificial lake created in the early 18th century by the dam that provided power to the factory.

    Hey, Karlin just told me that that same factory is still operational today, and is still the economic hub of the county. He also said that they have increased productivity 3.4% since the 1800′s.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. Anon[202] • Disclaimer says:
    @AaronB
    I would agree that Greek artistic influence probably was substantial at some point - it may even have provided the primary stimulus for Indian art, as early Buddhism was opposed to depictions of the Buddha, like Islam.

    However, Indian art at its apogee was substantially different from Greek art, and more similar to medieval Christian art.

    Of course, Greek art was substantially influenced by Egyptian art.

    Vedic religion was, especially in its mature and sophisticated stage, highly syncretistic - certainly it did not remain merely at the level of Aryan nature Gods, as it started out. Buddhism also, of course.

    The Aryan genius can fly very high when it is open to foreign influences which correct its fundamentally materialistic orientation - indeed, Greek culture cannot be viewed without reference to the vast Oriental world it stood on the edge of and received constant influences from.

    Remember Herodotus and his "Greeks are as children compared to the Egyptians".

    So I'm not trying to knock Aryans - the Eastern genius needs balance in its own way and may be too "ethereal".

    I am trying to indicate possible courses for the next stage of world culture, and to highlight the possible origins of modern materialism, which is merely materialism ramified throughout every area of human life, in patterns that seem endemic to Aryan culture whenever it's genius asserts itself without foreign influences.

    Aryan culture may have an extremely important contribution to make to world culture - the emphasis on the physical - and other cultures may need this corrective balance, but it is worthwhile trying to understand its deficiencies in its pure form.

    And the sane can be said of any native culture in its pure form.

    I am trying to indicate possible courses for the next stage of world culture, and to highlight the possible origins of modern materialism, which is merely materialism ramified throughout every area of human life, in patterns that seem endemic to Aryan culture whenever it’s genius asserts itself without foreign influences.

    OK. That is what you are trying to do. What I was trying to do was to suggest that it is unfair to compare Greek art unfavorably to Indian art because the latter is in some degree a development on it in a different direction.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    I see.

    Well, even if Indian art was based on Greek technique when it reached its maturity it had quite a different focus than Greek art, different themes, etc.

    So its reasonable to compare that aspect of the two traditions, but ones judgement will depend on ones values.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. AaronB says:
    @Dmitry
    I think you are confusing words.

    Aryans who settled in Northern India, and wrote Vedic hymns - were a people and culture, originally from Andronovo (nowadays central Asia) - and their root would be similar to nomads who had settled earlier in Ancient Persia, with many overlapping words in the Sanskrit and Ancient Persian languages.

    Ancient Greek people and culture are highly divergent civilization, which experiences enormous culture shock when later Persians start expanding West direction in 6th century. (And well what happens between Greeks and Persians in the next century is one of the most epic episodes in history).

    I believe Greeks are supposed to be Aryans as well, though, and to have migrated from the same region – the Doric invasions from the North, etc.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry
    No, Greeks are not from Andronovo (although it would be hilarious we could claim Ancient Greek culture as part of heritage of the Soviet Union).

    Genetically, Greeks are now known to be descendants of Mycenaeans.

    Even Mycenaean Linear B is an Indo-European language, and all these languages derive from Yamnaya. Andronovo was descended from similarly (contemporaneous with Yamnaya and related to) Afanasevans in modern Siberia

    But transmission of languages to peoples without languages, does not require settlement and invasion of peoples (although this can be one process of transmission, as it was in Ancient India).

    Greeks (descended primarily from Mycenaeans) are typical Southern European people, with some smaller gene flow from Caucasus and Northern Europe.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. AaronB says:
    @Anon

    I am trying to indicate possible courses for the next stage of world culture, and to highlight the possible origins of modern materialism, which is merely materialism ramified throughout every area of human life, in patterns that seem endemic to Aryan culture whenever it’s genius asserts itself without foreign influences.
     
    OK. That is what you are trying to do. What I was trying to do was to suggest that it is unfair to compare Greek art unfavorably to Indian art because the latter is in some degree a development on it in a different direction.

    I see.

    Well, even if Indian art was based on Greek technique when it reached its maturity it had quite a different focus than Greek art, different themes, etc.

    So its reasonable to compare that aspect of the two traditions, but ones judgement will depend on ones values.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. Dmitry says:
    @AaronB
    I believe Greeks are supposed to be Aryans as well, though, and to have migrated from the same region - the Doric invasions from the North, etc.

    No, Greeks are not from Andronovo (although it would be hilarious we could claim Ancient Greek culture as part of heritage of the Soviet Union).

    Genetically, Greeks are now known to be descendants of Mycenaeans.

    Even Mycenaean Linear B is an Indo-European language, and all these languages derive from Yamnaya. Andronovo was descended from similarly (contemporaneous with Yamnaya and related to) Afanasevans in modern Siberia

    But transmission of languages to peoples without languages, does not require settlement and invasion of peoples (although this can be one process of transmission, as it was in Ancient India).

    Greeks (descended primarily from Mycenaeans) are typical Southern European people, with some smaller gene flow from Caucasus and Northern Europe.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry

    Genetically, Greeks are now known to be descendants of Mycenaeans.

     

    Cool article here:

    The Greeks really do have near-mythical origins, ancient DNA reveals

    Ever since the days of Homer, Greeks have long idealized their Mycenaean “ancestors” in epic poems and classic tragedies that glorify the exploits of Odysseus, King Agamemnon, and other heroes who went in and out of favor with the Greek gods. Although these Mycenaeans were fictitious, scholars have debated whether today’s Greeks descend from the actual Mycenaeans, who created a famous civilization that dominated mainland Greece and the Aegean Sea from about 1600 B.C.E. to 1200 B.C.E., or whether the ancient Mycenaeans simply vanished from the region.

    Now, ancient DNA suggests that living Greeks are indeed the descendants of Mycenaeans, with only a small proportion of DNA from later migrations to Greece. And the Mycenaeans themselves were closely related to the earlier Minoans, the study reveals, another great civilization that flourished on the island of Crete from 2600 B.C.E. to 1400 B.C.E. (named for the mythical King Minos).

    The ancient Mycenaeans and Minoans were most closely related to each other, and they both got three-quarters of their DNA from early farmers who lived in Greece and southwestern Anatolia, which is now part of Turkey, the team reports today in Nature. Both cultures additionally inherited DNA from people from the eastern Caucasus, near modern-day Iran, suggesting an early migration of people from the east after the early farmers settled there but before Mycenaeans split from Minoans.

    The Mycenaeans did have an important difference: They had some DNA—4% to 16%—from northern ancestors who came from Eastern Europe or Siberia.This suggests that a second wave of people from the Eurasian steppe came to mainland Greece by way of Eastern Europe or Armenia, but didn’t reach Crete, says Iosif Lazaridis, a population geneticist at Harvard University who co-led the study.

    Not surprisingly, the Minoans and Mycenaeans looked alike, both carrying genes for brown hair and brown eyes. Artists in both cultures painted dark-haired, dark-eyed people on frescoes and pottery who resemble each other, although the two cultures spoke and wrote different languages. The Mycenaeans were more militaristic, with art replete with spears and images of war, whereas Minoan art showed few signs of warfare, Lazaridis says. Because the Minoans script used hieroglyphics, some archaeologists thought they were partly Egyptian, which turns out to be false.
     

    http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/08/greeks-really-do-have-near-mythical-origins-ancient-dna-reveals

    Article believes Mycenaeans themselves had a small portion of Siberian origin (4% to 16%), which could explain Indo-European features in Linear B. (Dorians probably just ethnic Greeks).

    , @AaronB
    Interesting.

    I have myself long thought that the "Aryan" race theory based merely on similarity of language made zero sense. Its like as if some future scholar decides Hong Kong was a racial branch of the Anglo Saxon family lol.

    As all sensible, rational, and common sense things this was widely ignored in our culture because science or something.

    Well, if Greeks weren't Aryans, perhaps I can limit my argument to Europeans only. The Greek focus on the physical and material was later picked up by northern Europeans and became the basis of modern culture.

    Now, perhaps the Western focus on the physical needs to be balanced out by the Eastern focus on the spiritual, and vice versa.

    So perhaps europe and had a significant role to play in the evolution of world culture - but it is time to move on, and remaining stuck in the purely physical phase is destructive for everyone.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. Numinous says:
    @utu
    Somebody here wrote:

    Everything we know about ancient Greece is post-hoc inventions and rationalizations, invented 2000 years after. There’s more Enlightenment and Voltaire in ‘ancient Greece’ than actual Greece.
     
    It occurred to me that this may more apply to claims coming from India which are being pulled like rabbits from magician's hat. This may include this guy Panini. Any historical narrative is a construction that has a political function.

    It occurred to me that this may more apply to claims coming from India which are being pulled like rabbits from magician’s hat. This may include this guy Panini.

    There are indeed many crazy claims made by our nationalists about the so-called achievements of ancient Indians, but Panini and his contributions are about as incontrovertible as you can get. If you believe in Socrates and Plato (and believe they were Greek), you ought to believe in Panini (and believe that he was Indian). The guy wasn’t plucked out of obscurity through archaeological and linguistics innovations in the 19th century. He’s been known in India on a continuous basis over the ages. Our civilization’s preservation of the Sanskrit language and various philosophical texts composed in that language has been pitch-perfect, and Panini is one the people to thank for that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. Dmitry says:
    @Dmitry
    No, Greeks are not from Andronovo (although it would be hilarious we could claim Ancient Greek culture as part of heritage of the Soviet Union).

    Genetically, Greeks are now known to be descendants of Mycenaeans.

    Even Mycenaean Linear B is an Indo-European language, and all these languages derive from Yamnaya. Andronovo was descended from similarly (contemporaneous with Yamnaya and related to) Afanasevans in modern Siberia

    But transmission of languages to peoples without languages, does not require settlement and invasion of peoples (although this can be one process of transmission, as it was in Ancient India).

    Greeks (descended primarily from Mycenaeans) are typical Southern European people, with some smaller gene flow from Caucasus and Northern Europe.

    Genetically, Greeks are now known to be descendants of Mycenaeans.

    Cool article here:

    The Greeks really do have near-mythical origins, ancient DNA reveals

    Ever since the days of Homer, Greeks have long idealized their Mycenaean “ancestors” in epic poems and classic tragedies that glorify the exploits of Odysseus, King Agamemnon, and other heroes who went in and out of favor with the Greek gods. Although these Mycenaeans were fictitious, scholars have debated whether today’s Greeks descend from the actual Mycenaeans, who created a famous civilization that dominated mainland Greece and the Aegean Sea from about 1600 B.C.E. to 1200 B.C.E., or whether the ancient Mycenaeans simply vanished from the region.

    Now, ancient DNA suggests that living Greeks are indeed the descendants of Mycenaeans, with only a small proportion of DNA from later migrations to Greece. And the Mycenaeans themselves were closely related to the earlier Minoans, the study reveals, another great civilization that flourished on the island of Crete from 2600 B.C.E. to 1400 B.C.E. (named for the mythical King Minos).

    The ancient Mycenaeans and Minoans were most closely related to each other, and they both got three-quarters of their DNA from early farmers who lived in Greece and southwestern Anatolia, which is now part of Turkey, the team reports today in Nature. Both cultures additionally inherited DNA from people from the eastern Caucasus, near modern-day Iran, suggesting an early migration of people from the east after the early farmers settled there but before Mycenaeans split from Minoans.

    The Mycenaeans did have an important difference: They had some DNA—4% to 16%—from northern ancestors who came from Eastern Europe or Siberia.This suggests that a second wave of people from the Eurasian steppe came to mainland Greece by way of Eastern Europe or Armenia, but didn’t reach Crete, says Iosif Lazaridis, a population geneticist at Harvard University who co-led the study.

    Not surprisingly, the Minoans and Mycenaeans looked alike, both carrying genes for brown hair and brown eyes. Artists in both cultures painted dark-haired, dark-eyed people on frescoes and pottery who resemble each other, although the two cultures spoke and wrote different languages. The Mycenaeans were more militaristic, with art replete with spears and images of war, whereas Minoan art showed few signs of warfare, Lazaridis says. Because the Minoans script used hieroglyphics, some archaeologists thought they were partly Egyptian, which turns out to be false.

    http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/08/greeks-really-do-have-near-mythical-origins-ancient-dna-reveals

    Article believes Mycenaeans themselves had a small portion of Siberian origin (4% to 16%), which could explain Indo-European features in Linear B. (Dorians probably just ethnic Greeks).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. AaronB says:
    @Dmitry
    No, Greeks are not from Andronovo (although it would be hilarious we could claim Ancient Greek culture as part of heritage of the Soviet Union).

    Genetically, Greeks are now known to be descendants of Mycenaeans.

    Even Mycenaean Linear B is an Indo-European language, and all these languages derive from Yamnaya. Andronovo was descended from similarly (contemporaneous with Yamnaya and related to) Afanasevans in modern Siberia

    But transmission of languages to peoples without languages, does not require settlement and invasion of peoples (although this can be one process of transmission, as it was in Ancient India).

    Greeks (descended primarily from Mycenaeans) are typical Southern European people, with some smaller gene flow from Caucasus and Northern Europe.

    Interesting.

    I have myself long thought that the “Aryan” race theory based merely on similarity of language made zero sense. Its like as if some future scholar decides Hong Kong was a racial branch of the Anglo Saxon family lol.

    As all sensible, rational, and common sense things this was widely ignored in our culture because science or something.

    Well, if Greeks weren’t Aryans, perhaps I can limit my argument to Europeans only. The Greek focus on the physical and material was later picked up by northern Europeans and became the basis of modern culture.

    Now, perhaps the Western focus on the physical needs to be balanced out by the Eastern focus on the spiritual, and vice versa.

    So perhaps europe and had a significant role to play in the evolution of world culture – but it is time to move on, and remaining stuck in the purely physical phase is destructive for everyone.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry
    I think this distinction "spiritual", not "spiritual", does not make sense.

    Vedic hymns (most "hippy" literature of the Ancient World) are product, as we know, of settlers from Andronovo. So how are the settlers, originally from Andronovo, not a spiritual component in Ancient India?

    Also the concept that Greek inheritance is not spiritual or superstitious, is a belief of modern Europe - and derives from later Hellenization in Ancient Israel (in which Hellenization became associated with modernization and urbanization - see my photo above I take earlier this year, in ruins of wealthy Ancient Jewish house in Israel, where they write on the floor in Greek), and the belief was later transmitted to Christianity .

    In the 19th century, writers like Nietzsche (who was extremely immersed in the culture as a philologist) are very critical of this view of Greeks civilization, and sees it simply as a projection of modern Europe onto the admired Ancient civilization.

    Reading again texts of 5th century Athens - can see an extremely religious society (although in only religious terms, not as religiously sophisticated as Ancient India of the same era).

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. Dmitry says:
    @AaronB
    Interesting.

    I have myself long thought that the "Aryan" race theory based merely on similarity of language made zero sense. Its like as if some future scholar decides Hong Kong was a racial branch of the Anglo Saxon family lol.

    As all sensible, rational, and common sense things this was widely ignored in our culture because science or something.

    Well, if Greeks weren't Aryans, perhaps I can limit my argument to Europeans only. The Greek focus on the physical and material was later picked up by northern Europeans and became the basis of modern culture.

    Now, perhaps the Western focus on the physical needs to be balanced out by the Eastern focus on the spiritual, and vice versa.

    So perhaps europe and had a significant role to play in the evolution of world culture - but it is time to move on, and remaining stuck in the purely physical phase is destructive for everyone.

    I think this distinction “spiritual”, not “spiritual”, does not make sense.

    Vedic hymns (most “hippy” literature of the Ancient World) are product, as we know, of settlers from Andronovo. So how are the settlers, originally from Andronovo, not a spiritual component in Ancient India?

    Also the concept that Greek inheritance is not spiritual or superstitious, is a belief of modern Europe – and derives from later Hellenization in Ancient Israel (in which Hellenization became associated with modernization and urbanization – see my photo above I take earlier this year, in ruins of wealthy Ancient Jewish house in Israel, where they write on the floor in Greek), and the belief was later transmitted to Christianity .

    In the 19th century, writers like Nietzsche (who was extremely immersed in the culture as a philologist) are very critical of this view of Greeks civilization, and sees it simply as a projection of modern Europe onto the admired Ancient civilization.

    Reading again texts of 5th century Athens – can see an extremely religious society (although in only religious terms, not as religiously sophisticated as Ancient India of the same era).

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    The Vedic hymns are not generally considered any kind of spiritual highpoint, but rather as primitive pagan hymns to nature Gods. This later developed into an elaborate spirituality with the Upsnishads, etc.

    But of course, the original Vedic settlers did make a spiritual contribution, and together with local and foreign elements participated in the building up of one of the world's great spiritualities.

    As for Greek culture, it was incredibly complex and certainly had a spiritual component of a very high order - from the Pythagorean to Plato and beyond. I am certainly not claiming the Greek tradition lacked a spiritual component of a very high order.

    I am merely stating that the unique and distinctive element in Greek culture - that no one else seems to have done - is a focus on and glorification of the physical, especially the body.

    And that northern Europeans later seized on precisely this element as the most important element in Greek culture and not its very interesting spiritual trafition, and made it the basis of modern culture.

    Nietzsche distinguished between archaic Greeks and classical Greeks - and like myself, he thought Greek rationalism introduced by figures like Socrates and Euripides killed off all the vital elements of archaic Greek culture and led to a general depression of spirits, loss of cultural vitality, and even a tendency to suicide - exactly what we are seeing today, under the influence of the exact same Greek impulse.

    Yes, 5th century Athens was of course extremely religious, much like America today is both the most religious western country and the epicenter of materialism - in other words, elite cultural opinion in both places was distinguished by attitudes that diverged sharply from the masses. 5th century Athens was also a time of great ferment - in other words, it was a transitional period, and elements of spiritual and cultural vitality coexisted with a growing decadence - so there would be sone outstanding figures of immense spiritual vitality such as Sophocles and Pericles while on the horizon dark clouds were gathering in the form of the simplistic rationalism of a Socrates. Such, at any rate, was Nietzsches take.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. AaronB says:
    @Dmitry
    I think this distinction "spiritual", not "spiritual", does not make sense.

    Vedic hymns (most "hippy" literature of the Ancient World) are product, as we know, of settlers from Andronovo. So how are the settlers, originally from Andronovo, not a spiritual component in Ancient India?

    Also the concept that Greek inheritance is not spiritual or superstitious, is a belief of modern Europe - and derives from later Hellenization in Ancient Israel (in which Hellenization became associated with modernization and urbanization - see my photo above I take earlier this year, in ruins of wealthy Ancient Jewish house in Israel, where they write on the floor in Greek), and the belief was later transmitted to Christianity .

    In the 19th century, writers like Nietzsche (who was extremely immersed in the culture as a philologist) are very critical of this view of Greeks civilization, and sees it simply as a projection of modern Europe onto the admired Ancient civilization.

    Reading again texts of 5th century Athens - can see an extremely religious society (although in only religious terms, not as religiously sophisticated as Ancient India of the same era).

    The Vedic hymns are not generally considered any kind of spiritual highpoint, but rather as primitive pagan hymns to nature Gods. This later developed into an elaborate spirituality with the Upsnishads, etc.

    But of course, the original Vedic settlers did make a spiritual contribution, and together with local and foreign elements participated in the building up of one of the world’s great spiritualities.

    As for Greek culture, it was incredibly complex and certainly had a spiritual component of a very high order – from the Pythagorean to Plato and beyond. I am certainly not claiming the Greek tradition lacked a spiritual component of a very high order.

    I am merely stating that the unique and distinctive element in Greek culture – that no one else seems to have done – is a focus on and glorification of the physical, especially the body.

    And that northern Europeans later seized on precisely this element as the most important element in Greek culture and not its very interesting spiritual trafition, and made it the basis of modern culture.

    Nietzsche distinguished between archaic Greeks and classical Greeks – and like myself, he thought Greek rationalism introduced by figures like Socrates and Euripides killed off all the vital elements of archaic Greek culture and led to a general depression of spirits, loss of cultural vitality, and even a tendency to suicide – exactly what we are seeing today, under the influence of the exact same Greek impulse.

    Yes, 5th century Athens was of course extremely religious, much like America today is both the most religious western country and the epicenter of materialism – in other words, elite cultural opinion in both places was distinguished by attitudes that diverged sharply from the masses. 5th century Athens was also a time of great ferment – in other words, it was a transitional period, and elements of spiritual and cultural vitality coexisted with a growing decadence – so there would be sone outstanding figures of immense spiritual vitality such as Sophocles and Pericles while on the horizon dark clouds were gathering in the form of the simplistic rationalism of a Socrates. Such, at any rate, was Nietzsches take.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry
    All Ancient cultures would privilege physical and body - with limited sanitation (although improving with the Romans greatly), without modern medicine, and with your city's survival depending on physical fitness of its young men.

    As for Ancient India - we can see even under a caste system, for brahmins who do not fight, and yet for whom a lot of spiritual exercises are inseparated from physical exercises.

    A difference with the Greeks in their golden age, from earlier and contemporaneous societies, is amazingly good sculpture showing their physical ideals, and highly sophisticated literature describing ordinary things about their society which allows us to know it much better than other earlier/contemporaneous ancient societies (other earlier/contemporaneous societies are only writing mythology, which don't tell us anything about how they lived in ordinary life), and intercity competition (sometimes even sublimated into sport).

    Viewpoint of Nietzsche is very cool, but in an earlier article he attributes miracle of Greece to intercity competition, and its fatal end to the end of this competition. Whether emergence of Socrates and dialectics is a symptom of decline (and embodied in his physical ugliness), as he writes in later books? I have not read enough literature of Ancient Greece to write comment.

    I have read/seen plays only of Sophocles and Aristophanes, both geniuses of different kinds. There is vast difference between approach of the two authors . But whether this reflects their generational difference (and loss of piety), or difference of the personality of the authors and their genres (tragedy in Sophocles and comedy in Aristophanes)? (Aristophanes is very irreverential and sophisticated, and can give the reader a sense that he is reading something from the19th century AD, not 5th century BC).

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. Dmitry says:
    @AaronB
    The Vedic hymns are not generally considered any kind of spiritual highpoint, but rather as primitive pagan hymns to nature Gods. This later developed into an elaborate spirituality with the Upsnishads, etc.

    But of course, the original Vedic settlers did make a spiritual contribution, and together with local and foreign elements participated in the building up of one of the world's great spiritualities.

    As for Greek culture, it was incredibly complex and certainly had a spiritual component of a very high order - from the Pythagorean to Plato and beyond. I am certainly not claiming the Greek tradition lacked a spiritual component of a very high order.

    I am merely stating that the unique and distinctive element in Greek culture - that no one else seems to have done - is a focus on and glorification of the physical, especially the body.

    And that northern Europeans later seized on precisely this element as the most important element in Greek culture and not its very interesting spiritual trafition, and made it the basis of modern culture.

    Nietzsche distinguished between archaic Greeks and classical Greeks - and like myself, he thought Greek rationalism introduced by figures like Socrates and Euripides killed off all the vital elements of archaic Greek culture and led to a general depression of spirits, loss of cultural vitality, and even a tendency to suicide - exactly what we are seeing today, under the influence of the exact same Greek impulse.

    Yes, 5th century Athens was of course extremely religious, much like America today is both the most religious western country and the epicenter of materialism - in other words, elite cultural opinion in both places was distinguished by attitudes that diverged sharply from the masses. 5th century Athens was also a time of great ferment - in other words, it was a transitional period, and elements of spiritual and cultural vitality coexisted with a growing decadence - so there would be sone outstanding figures of immense spiritual vitality such as Sophocles and Pericles while on the horizon dark clouds were gathering in the form of the simplistic rationalism of a Socrates. Such, at any rate, was Nietzsches take.

    All Ancient cultures would privilege physical and body – with limited sanitation (although improving with the Romans greatly), without modern medicine, and with your city’s survival depending on physical fitness of its young men.

    As for Ancient India – we can see even under a caste system, for brahmins who do not fight, and yet for whom a lot of spiritual exercises are inseparated from physical exercises.

    A difference with the Greeks in their golden age, from earlier and contemporaneous societies, is amazingly good sculpture showing their physical ideals, and highly sophisticated literature describing ordinary things about their society which allows us to know it much better than other earlier/contemporaneous ancient societies (other earlier/contemporaneous societies are only writing mythology, which don’t tell us anything about how they lived in ordinary life), and intercity competition (sometimes even sublimated into sport).

    Viewpoint of Nietzsche is very cool, but in an earlier article he attributes miracle of Greece to intercity competition, and its fatal end to the end of this competition. Whether emergence of Socrates and dialectics is a symptom of decline (and embodied in his physical ugliness), as he writes in later books? I have not read enough literature of Ancient Greece to write comment.

    I have read/seen plays only of Sophocles and Aristophanes, both geniuses of different kinds. There is vast difference between approach of the two authors . But whether this reflects their generational difference (and loss of piety), or difference of the personality of the authors and their genres (tragedy in Sophocles and comedy in Aristophanes)? (Aristophanes is very irreverential and sophisticated, and can give the reader a sense that he is reading something from the19th century AD, not 5th century BC).

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    Well, what you are saying is obviously untrue.

    Ancient cultures differed in the importance they ascribed to the body and the interest displayed in it.

    When one culture builds elaborate religious temples and another builds statues of naked athletes, when one culture glorifies athletic pursuits and another disdains them, the difference in attitude is clear.

    I wonder if I am detecting the same kind of values-insecurity that makes the IQ crowd unquestioningly assert that all groups have the exact same goals and thus differences in outcomes can only be caused by differences in ability :)

    In other words, according to you everyone had the exact same interest in the body, but only the Greeks had the ability to express it.

    If it makes you happy to believe that :)

    Yes, Nietzsche attributed the vitality of Greek culture to the Agon in an early essay, and I believe he saw Socrates as establishing one final Agon with his dialogues.

    I tend to agree with N that Greek culture died of excessive rationality - as ours is, following the same line of development.

    But others may disagree.

    I believe N pointed out Euripides as the beginning of the decline along with Socrates and as exemplifying a more comedic and rationalistic and less tragic attitude - I interestingly, Euripides plays were considered by the ancient Greeks as the most tragic.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. Materialism is only bad when it becomes your only arbiter for decision-making.

    I like to counter-signal against people whinging about “consumerism”.

    Am I supposed to be upset about more and better products being available?

    I get great satisfaction from purchasing and using the very best products.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosie

    Am I supposed to be upset about more and better products being available?
     
    If you genuinely enjoy the products you buy, that is probably a pretty good indication that you are not an out-of control materialist. The problem is buying products that don't bring you joy for the sake of keeping up with the Joneses, or worse, because you're trying to compensate for something deeper that you are missing.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. notanon says:
    @anonymous coward
    Did you even read my post? There is no such thing as an "industrial revolution". It's just a pile of self-serving malarkey by Anglo historians about why their industry is "real" industry and industry from other countries doesn't "really count".

    Comparatively speaking, England was a latecomer. Sweden and then Russia were there first.

    There is no such thing as an “industrial revolution”.

    Sweden and then Russia were there first.

    Scandinavia, Holland etc are all part of that Hajnal region – “Anglo” in this context really means the whole NW region.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous coward

    Scandinavia, Holland etc are all part of that Hajnal region – “Anglo” in this context really means the whole NW region.
     
    Sweden is Anglo? Lay off the cheap drugs, mate.

    Also, there is no such thing as a "Hajnal region". The Hajnal line doesn't apply to Eastern Europe.

    Finally, you missed my point. Industrial advances were made by slow and gradual steps over many countries and cultures and many centuries. By definition, not a "revolution".

    The "industrial revolution" meme comes from the fact that Britain used to be an industrial backwater and then suddenly exploded to become the world leader of industry during a very short time. Props to the British for this, but please don't use the phrase "industrial revolution" in any context except the very narrow one of specifically British history.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. @AaronB
    Right, Ghandaran art, but that was limited to northwest India and Afghanistan.

    There was even a Greek Buddhist kingdom in the region for a while, a successor state to Alexander the great. I find those lonely and isolated Greek kingdoms near central Asia fascinating.

    I actually think there was significant cultural exchange between India and the ancient world over many centuries - much of early Greek thought seems clearly influenced by India, while Mahayana Buddhism seems to have been influenced by early Christianity, in a kind of cultural circle.

    Still, the distinctive Greek contribution seems to have been the glorification of the body and the physical world - this is not the entirety of Greek culture, to be sure, and Greek culture was incredibly complex and syncretistic - but physical glorification seems to have been unique to Greece, and was the element most eagerly picked up later by the northern Europeans and developed into our modern world.

    If the Greeks were indeed Aryans, then it seems the distinctive Aryan genius has been the glorification of physicality.

    Which is not to say that Aryans are capable of nothing higher - merely that, left to itself, the Aryan genius seems to descend into mere physicality.

    The Jewish and Asian genius, left to itself, is perhaps overly spiritual, and needs a dose of Aryan physicality to balance things out.

    The Enlightenment seems to have been the native Aryan genius asserting itself against the domination of Eastern spirituality - and the result is the modern worlds glorification of all things physical, which everyone is beginning to agree has been a disaster.

    Perhaps the next stage in the evolution of world culture is to once again unite Aryan physicality with Eastern spirituality in a balanced and healthy while?

    I think despite your rejection of the cultural framework of your society, you have not escaped it.

    For whatever reason, I think, in America it is popular to associate cultural traits and habits with large-scale continents or religions.

    Saying ”white people” or ”Jews” or ”Asians” as like this or that.

    But you do not make more refined distinctions which could make your arguments at least somewhat plausible.

    I hear you often talk about ‘whites’ or ‘muslims’ or ‘Jews’ or ‘Asians’, but I don’t see you really comprehend the differences between Askenazim vs Mizrahim, secular Jews vs religious Jews, NW Europeans vs S Europeans vs E Europeans vs Americans of European descent, East Asians vs Indians vs South-East Asians etc. very much.

    Nor changes in cultural periods.

    Perhaps then you would not make statements like this:

    If the Greeks were indeed Aryans, then it seems the distinctive Aryan genius has been the glorification of physicality.

    Which is not to say that Aryans are capable of nothing higher – merely that, left to itself, the Aryan genius seems to descend into mere physicality.

    The Jewish and Asian genius, left to itself, is perhaps overly spiritual, and needs a dose of Aryan physicality to balance things out.

    Although perhaps your worldview is tinted by the type of cultural endgoal you seem to desire?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry
    Lol, I try to visualize what history classes must be like in American school, for Americans to so commonly form this way of seeing the world. Even in New York Times, somehow journalists are always trying to reduce a whole world and history to some few simple American categories. It's not particular beliefs, but a complete American world outlook somehow absorbed in their youth, through which everything is later processed.

    But at least from documentary evidence in the latest Spiderman film - kids are studying serious physics and chemistry.

    , @AaronB
    So basically you're saying one cannot say meaningful and interesting things about, say, "the West" without pointing out there are significant differences between western countries.

    This is basically a variant of "they're not all like that" :)

    Is it really true that in Europe they have lost the intellectual chops needed to make large scale analysis? Sad, if true.

    I remember the days of the great European historians who reveled in sweeping generalizations and managed to say fascinating things - maybe this is why history writing is so often boring these days.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. Rosie says:
    @Thorfinnsson
    Materialism is only bad when it becomes your only arbiter for decision-making.

    I like to counter-signal against people whinging about "consumerism".

    Am I supposed to be upset about more and better products being available?

    I get great satisfaction from purchasing and using the very best products.

    Am I supposed to be upset about more and better products being available?

    If you genuinely enjoy the products you buy, that is probably a pretty good indication that you are not an out-of control materialist. The problem is buying products that don’t bring you joy for the sake of keeping up with the Joneses, or worse, because you’re trying to compensate for something deeper that you are missing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Good point!

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. Dmitry says:
    @Hyperborean
    I think despite your rejection of the cultural framework of your society, you have not escaped it.

    For whatever reason, I think, in America it is popular to associate cultural traits and habits with large-scale continents or religions.

    Saying ''white people'' or ''Jews'' or ''Asians'' as like this or that.

    But you do not make more refined distinctions which could make your arguments at least somewhat plausible.

    I hear you often talk about 'whites' or 'muslims' or 'Jews' or 'Asians', but I don't see you really comprehend the differences between Askenazim vs Mizrahim, secular Jews vs religious Jews, NW Europeans vs S Europeans vs E Europeans vs Americans of European descent, East Asians vs Indians vs South-East Asians etc. very much.

    Nor changes in cultural periods.

    Perhaps then you would not make statements like this:

    If the Greeks were indeed Aryans, then it seems the distinctive Aryan genius has been the glorification of physicality.

    Which is not to say that Aryans are capable of nothing higher – merely that, left to itself, the Aryan genius seems to descend into mere physicality.

    The Jewish and Asian genius, left to itself, is perhaps overly spiritual, and needs a dose of Aryan physicality to balance things out.

     

    Although perhaps your worldview is tinted by the type of cultural endgoal you seem to desire?

    Lol, I try to visualize what history classes must be like in American school, for Americans to so commonly form this way of seeing the world. Even in New York Times, somehow journalists are always trying to reduce a whole world and history to some few simple American categories. It’s not particular beliefs, but a complete American world outlook somehow absorbed in their youth, through which everything is later processed.

    But at least from documentary evidence in the latest Spiderman film – kids are studying serious physics and chemistry.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. Bliss says:
    @Bardon Kaldian
    Your text is not convincing, either. I am not too interested in IQ debates, and within, as well without that paradigm, I don't see how one can explain the birth of Greek culture that had revolutionized the world & is, in many respects, the basis of global civilization.

    First a few points: I'm writing in a politically correct notation (BCE/CE to avoid our bias BC/AD); I know that, theoretically, one cannot "prove" that a product of one culture is "higher" or "better" than some work from another, simply because there in no common referential frame (even within one culture, there is no "proof"- as George Steiner had said in his magisterial "Tolstoy or Dostoevsky", if you don't see that Tolstoy's "Anna Karenina" is greater, more human & richer work than Flaubert's "Mme Bovary" (the same topic, female adultery)- then you are just deaf to mental-emotional-spiritual "tonalities" & nothing more can be said about it).

    In the case of old Greeks, we may summarize their achievement from 700-200 BCE (of course, and later, but I just don't won't to mess with Christianity, Romans, whatnot...). The only rivals are Chinese, Indian, Middle Eastern & Egyptian civilizations.

    In the field of sciences, Greeks invented science as a unified field of knowledge. Mathematical proof & systematic scientific thinking are their achievements, as testified by Euclid's "Elements", one of the most influential books ever written. Archimedes with his many contributions (among them integral calculus) remains among top 3-5 world mathematicians, while Pythagoras is basically a god of mathematics and Eratosthenes (along with Indians, the calculated the earth's circumference) is a father of geography..... All "ethnic" math traditions lag behind Greek, even Indian one, which had had some uncanny advantages that later Europeans have modified & developed.

    Also heliocentric system (only Greeks) etc. etc. Chinese medicine was probably more developed (see Needham's magnum opus), but Greek one was not bad- actually, perhaps better than Egyptian & close to Chinese and Indian.

    Philosophy. All others have a limited range of thought & and are mostly commenters of their sacred texts. In Greece, we have truly different schools of thought that cover what we now call materialism, objective and subjective idealism, skepticism, stoicism, empiricism, relativism, philosophy of language, political philosophy, aesthetics, psychology, elements of social philosophy, ethics,... It is true that other great civilizations have elements of that (Arthashastra, Chu Hsi, ..)- but there is nowhere such a wealth of ideas that later developed in global world- evolution (all Ionian cosmologies are evolutionary), democracy, fascism, eugenics, physical education, feminism, complete education for body, emotions & mind (Plato), mathematized cosmos (Pythagoras), cosmopolitanism (stoics, but Socrates, too), intellectual questioning of slavery, logic (Plato, then finally Aristotle), ....

    Literature. Apart from great epics of India, which are culturally different, evidently Greek literature has some universal masterpieces that remain world classics, especially tragedy (which was unknown outside of Greek world); lyric poetry cannot be compared with Chinese or Hindu because these genres are too entangled with the structure of language.

    As for history, Thucydides remains a classic historian, not inferior to any other anywhere & anytime.

    Visual arts. Putting aside early stylizations, it is evident that Greek sculpture is so superior that Chinese & Indian & Assyrian are basically a joke when we put them alongside Greek achievement:

    Chinese sculpture

    https://www.google.com/search?q=chinese+sculpture&client=firefox-b&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwie7JqlvbfcAhXPZFAKHbXMBVEQ_AUICigB&biw=1480&bih=712

    Indian sculpture

    https://www.google.com/search?q=indian+sculpture&client=firefox-b&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiLpoy-vbfcAhVMPFAKHTBBBhsQ_AUICigB&biw=1480&bih=712

    Greek sculpture

    https://www.google.com/search?q=greek+sculpture&client=firefox-b&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwik2OnZvbfcAhULLlAKHSNNDlkQ_AUICigB&biw=1480&bih=712

    Of course, everyone is free to disagree, but others are short, fat, comic, without individuality, clumsy,... Whatever.

    And if you add Alexander the Great, what then remains of others?

    Greece is the basis of the Western culture (unfortunately, and the gay thing), and Western culture is the world global culture; Greek super-achievers still remain somewhere on the top of many disciplines: Phidias, Plato, Aristotle, Homer, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Pythagoras, Archimedes, Hippocrates, Euclid, Alex the Great, Thucydides, ... They created scientific terminology which is in use even in modern disciplines (chromodynamics, topology, genetics, ..).

    What could have been done more?

    Like much of Greek culture, Greek sculpture (and architecture) is indebted to Egypt. So is Greek religion, philosophy, mathematics etc. If Greece is the mother of western civilization (which it is) then Egypt is it’s grandmother.

    The Greek statues in that link are more realistic compared to the indian and chinese, but they are monotonous in their infatuation with naked athletic bodies. The Chinese and Indian sculpture is far more diverse and interesting.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. Talha says:
    @Rosie

    Am I supposed to be upset about more and better products being available?
     
    If you genuinely enjoy the products you buy, that is probably a pretty good indication that you are not an out-of control materialist. The problem is buying products that don't bring you joy for the sake of keeping up with the Joneses, or worse, because you're trying to compensate for something deeper that you are missing.

    Good point!

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. Yevardian says:
    @Daniel Chieh
    Not in my experience; a lot of them are clearly mentally unstable and act in ways fitting for that(including being pretty avoidant of others). They're just very clannish, so to speak and unusually heavily clustered in creative industries, where they show a lot of interest in. In a vaguely Damore way, I would say that gays aren't necessarily better at art, but they definitely show a lot more interest in it and naturally dominate it.

    I grew up as part of an artistic collective; percentage that was gay was quite stunning. Also percentage of us that had killed themselves before reaching thirty was quite stunning too. It suggests artistic association both with gayness and fatal mental illness.

    Camille Paglia has written superlatively on this subject. Maybe one of the few women writers of the 20th century (or in general, really) that can be considered top-shelf reading.
    She addresses the counter point of lesbians and women generally being artistically talentless in comparison to homosexuals and men generally also. As a dike herself, I imagine she knows what she’s talking about.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosie

    As a dike herself, I imagine she knows what she’s talking about.
     
    Swell, an edgedyke academic gets to speak for women now.

    Men have superior visuospatial skills, but I vehemently disagree with you that women are second-rate writers. I don't know if I'll ever get around to writing my magnum opus or not, given that I don't really give a shit about fame and fortune, but sometimes I feel like women ought to be more proprietary about our intellectual work-product. Our share-and-share-alike attitude just enables this sort of obnoxious male triumphalism.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. @Anonymous

    maximizes synergy, encourages innovation, puts men on the moon etc
     
    What's the basis for this claim?

    Did Yuri Gagarin only manage to orbit the Earth and not land on the moon because Russia was Orthodox?

    Captured German scientists had less to do with the Soviet Space programme than the US one but there was plenty of German technology involved. Peenemunde was in the East.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. @anonymous coward

    industrial revolution
     
    No such thing. The Russian Urals were heavily industrialized back in Peter I's time. (Complete with factories and a huge proletarian class.) But the industrial system was present in Russia even earlier. The first Russian industrialist was born in 1488. (Stroganov, by the way, like the eponymous beef.)

    Russia's industry was almost always tied with the state-sponsored military-industrial complex, though, so Western historians ignore this huge chunk of history. (Apparently, unless consumer goods are involved, it's not "real" industry according to self-serving Anglo historians. Go figure.)

    English guns made the difference in 1612.

    And yes, consumer goods are more important. What else is technology for but to improve people’s lives. Military power is fascist.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. @anonymous coward
    Did you even read my post? There is no such thing as an "industrial revolution". It's just a pile of self-serving malarkey by Anglo historians about why their industry is "real" industry and industry from other countries doesn't "really count".

    Comparatively speaking, England was a latecomer. Sweden and then Russia were there first.

    So why was Sweden known as hungry Sweden and why weren’t the common people of both countries known for their wealth. The Russian serfs were known for famine. They were not known for iron cooking pots, plows or even hand pumps for their wells.

    You are displaying the Russian inferiority complex rather well. Focus on what was done well by Russia not denying others achievements.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. @anonymous coward

    You don’t think there’s anything notable about the steam engine, flying shuttle, spinning frame, mechanized loom, or Bessemer converter?
     
    I don't. These are incremental inventions based on concepts that existed for a long time already. The only (more or less) revolutionary invention was the conveyor belt, but that wasn't invented in Britain.


    The main argument against an English industrial revolution I’d think would be an earlier one in the Low Countries based on the intensive exploitation of peat and wind for power.
     
    This is a Russian factory, early 18th century:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3FP_M_387w

    Russia used hydropower extensively in that time, though. This

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/%D0%93%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B4%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%BF%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B4_2010_%281%29.JPG

    is actually an artificial lake created in the early 18th century by the dam that provided power to the factory.

    And yet Russia lagged economically, technically and socially since at least the time of Ivan III. So what happened? A conspiracy by all other countries just against Russia?

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous coward

    And yet Russia lagged economically, technically and socially since at least the time of Ivan III.
     
    And yet Russian territory, population and cultural influence exploded during that time. If "lagging economically, technically and socially" is what it takes to become one of the dominant world powers, then I support more lagging and backwardness.

    P.S. Trying to progress-shame Russians doesn't work. We don't give a flying fig about being "progressive" or "civilized", we only care about results.
    , @Daniel Chieh
    Russia also had to keep fighting steppe barbarians, conveniently insulating the West from it.

    ...the diversion of Muscovite resources and Russian gold to Caffa plainly had some impact on the development of Russia. The cost of ransom slavery alone was as much as 6 million roubles each year after 1600, and the great Russian historian Vasily Klyuchevsky – writing late in the nineteenth century, at a time when Russia’s inability to keep pace with the developing west was a matter of prime political importance – observed that “if you consider how much time and spiritual and material strength was wasted in the monotonous, brutal, toilsome and painful pursuit of [the Tatar] steppe predators, one need not ask what people in Eastern Europe were doing while those of Western Europe advanced in industry and commerce, in civil life and in the arts and sciences.”
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. @notanon

    There is no such thing as an “industrial revolution”.
     

    Sweden and then Russia were there first.
     
    Scandinavia, Holland etc are all part of that Hajnal region - "Anglo" in this context really means the whole NW region.

    Scandinavia, Holland etc are all part of that Hajnal region – “Anglo” in this context really means the whole NW region.

    Sweden is Anglo? Lay off the cheap drugs, mate.

    Also, there is no such thing as a “Hajnal region”. The Hajnal line doesn’t apply to Eastern Europe.

    Finally, you missed my point. Industrial advances were made by slow and gradual steps over many countries and cultures and many centuries. By definition, not a “revolution”.

    The “industrial revolution” meme comes from the fact that Britain used to be an industrial backwater and then suddenly exploded to become the world leader of industry during a very short time. Props to the British for this, but please don’t use the phrase “industrial revolution” in any context except the very narrow one of specifically British history.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    It's called an industrial revolution owing to a large number of revolutionary advances made in one country in a relatively short period of time. Perhaps it helps to visualize it:

    https://www.mrbevan.com/uploads/7/2/5/8/7258558/5396183_orig.gif

    This had dramatic consequences as well--British industrial production skyrocketed, and by the middle of the 19th century Britain was supplying half the manufactures in Europe.

    It's perhaps "unfair" to neglect the fact that dramatic advances were being made on the Continent at the same time in other industries such as silk and glass, but those turned out to be less consequential.

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/Murano_Glass_Chandelier.jpg

    Obviously industry has existed since at least the Bronze Age (or even before civilization if one considers stone tools), and indeed the nature of progress is largely as you describe.

    Can you think of comparable periods of technological efflorescence in other time periods?

    Perhaps Classical and Hellenistic Greek civilization, where a startling number of advances were made in a two century period (and in nearly every field, not just technology and industry). The Song Dynasty also comes to mind.

    Then there's the "Second Industrial Revolution" (steel, electricity, chemicals, oil, automobiles, aircraft, computers, plastics, aluminum, etc.), but it's so closely linked to the first (though by now a pan-Western affair) that we don't think of it as distinct.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. @Philip Owen
    And yet Russia lagged economically, technically and socially since at least the time of Ivan III. So what happened? A conspiracy by all other countries just against Russia?

    And yet Russia lagged economically, technically and socially since at least the time of Ivan III.

    And yet Russian territory, population and cultural influence exploded during that time. If “lagging economically, technically and socially” is what it takes to become one of the dominant world powers, then I support more lagging and backwardness.

    P.S. Trying to progress-shame Russians doesn’t work. We don’t give a flying fig about being “progressive” or “civilized”, we only care about results.

    Read More
    • Replies: @notanon

    Trying to progress-shame Russians doesn’t work
     
    the thing about the hajnal line idea is it doesn't require any special cleverness on the part of the people inside it - just somehow or other the marriage pattern effected something that either acted as a trigger or removed a brake.

    for example maybe reducing familial clannishness led people to try and regain the advantages by creating artificial clans in religious sects, voluntary guild associations etc

    We don’t give a flying fig about being “progressive” or “civilized”, we only care about results.
     
    technical progress != social progress for sure
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. @anonymous coward

    Scandinavia, Holland etc are all part of that Hajnal region – “Anglo” in this context really means the whole NW region.
     
    Sweden is Anglo? Lay off the cheap drugs, mate.

    Also, there is no such thing as a "Hajnal region". The Hajnal line doesn't apply to Eastern Europe.

    Finally, you missed my point. Industrial advances were made by slow and gradual steps over many countries and cultures and many centuries. By definition, not a "revolution".

    The "industrial revolution" meme comes from the fact that Britain used to be an industrial backwater and then suddenly exploded to become the world leader of industry during a very short time. Props to the British for this, but please don't use the phrase "industrial revolution" in any context except the very narrow one of specifically British history.

    It’s called an industrial revolution owing to a large number of revolutionary advances made in one country in a relatively short period of time. Perhaps it helps to visualize it:

    This had dramatic consequences as well–British industrial production skyrocketed, and by the middle of the 19th century Britain was supplying half the manufactures in Europe.

    It’s perhaps “unfair” to neglect the fact that dramatic advances were being made on the Continent at the same time in other industries such as silk and glass, but those turned out to be less consequential.

    Obviously industry has existed since at least the Bronze Age (or even before civilization if one considers stone tools), and indeed the nature of progress is largely as you describe.

    Can you think of comparable periods of technological efflorescence in other time periods?

    Perhaps Classical and Hellenistic Greek civilization, where a startling number of advances were made in a two century period (and in nearly every field, not just technology and industry). The Song Dynasty also comes to mind.

    Then there’s the “Second Industrial Revolution” (steel, electricity, chemicals, oil, automobiles, aircraft, computers, plastics, aluminum, etc.), but it’s so closely linked to the first (though by now a pan-Western affair) that we don’t think of it as distinct.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosie
    Lord in heaven that chandelier is exquisite. I see it in a large room with a tete-a-tete chair, a piano and nothing else but a mirror on the wall to reflect it.

    http://www.ciscobrothers.com/images/_Products/Tete-a-Tete_Chair_JD.jpg
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. Rosie says:
    @Yevardian
    Camille Paglia has written superlatively on this subject. Maybe one of the few women writers of the 20th century (or in general, really) that can be considered top-shelf reading.
    She addresses the counter point of lesbians and women generally being artistically talentless in comparison to homosexuals and men generally also. As a dike herself, I imagine she knows what she's talking about.

    As a dike herself, I imagine she knows what she’s talking about.

    Swell, an edgedyke academic gets to speak for women now.

    Men have superior visuospatial skills, but I vehemently disagree with you that women are second-rate writers. I don’t know if I’ll ever get around to writing my magnum opus or not, given that I don’t really give a shit about fame and fortune, but sometimes I feel like women ought to be more proprietary about our intellectual work-product. Our share-and-share-alike attitude just enables this sort of obnoxious male triumphalism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    Women write well about relationships. Jane Austen is the classic example. This is generally boring to men (though I find it interesting).

    Likewise most women aren't interested in adventure novels, science fiction, historical fiction, etc.

    There are some female novelists who have succeeded with both sexes. Shelley, Christie, and J.K. Rowling (not a fan of her ofc).

    I like cooking and thus come across a lot of female food bloggers (mostly SAHMs). It's generally a real chore reading them, because every recipe starts out with an extremely boring story about the writer or her family.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. Rosie says:
    @Thorfinnsson
    It's called an industrial revolution owing to a large number of revolutionary advances made in one country in a relatively short period of time. Perhaps it helps to visualize it:

    https://www.mrbevan.com/uploads/7/2/5/8/7258558/5396183_orig.gif

    This had dramatic consequences as well--British industrial production skyrocketed, and by the middle of the 19th century Britain was supplying half the manufactures in Europe.

    It's perhaps "unfair" to neglect the fact that dramatic advances were being made on the Continent at the same time in other industries such as silk and glass, but those turned out to be less consequential.

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/Murano_Glass_Chandelier.jpg

    Obviously industry has existed since at least the Bronze Age (or even before civilization if one considers stone tools), and indeed the nature of progress is largely as you describe.

    Can you think of comparable periods of technological efflorescence in other time periods?

    Perhaps Classical and Hellenistic Greek civilization, where a startling number of advances were made in a two century period (and in nearly every field, not just technology and industry). The Song Dynasty also comes to mind.

    Then there's the "Second Industrial Revolution" (steel, electricity, chemicals, oil, automobiles, aircraft, computers, plastics, aluminum, etc.), but it's so closely linked to the first (though by now a pan-Western affair) that we don't think of it as distinct.

    Lord in heaven that chandelier is exquisite. I see it in a large room with a tete-a-tete chair, a piano and nothing else but a mirror on the wall to reflect it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. notanon says:
    @anonymous coward

    And yet Russia lagged economically, technically and socially since at least the time of Ivan III.
     
    And yet Russian territory, population and cultural influence exploded during that time. If "lagging economically, technically and socially" is what it takes to become one of the dominant world powers, then I support more lagging and backwardness.

    P.S. Trying to progress-shame Russians doesn't work. We don't give a flying fig about being "progressive" or "civilized", we only care about results.

    Trying to progress-shame Russians doesn’t work

    the thing about the hajnal line idea is it doesn’t require any special cleverness on the part of the people inside it – just somehow or other the marriage pattern effected something that either acted as a trigger or removed a brake.

    for example maybe reducing familial clannishness led people to try and regain the advantages by creating artificial clans in religious sects, voluntary guild associations etc

    We don’t give a flying fig about being “progressive” or “civilized”, we only care about results.

    technical progress != social progress for sure

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. @Philip Owen
    And yet Russia lagged economically, technically and socially since at least the time of Ivan III. So what happened? A conspiracy by all other countries just against Russia?

    Russia also had to keep fighting steppe barbarians, conveniently insulating the West from it.

    …the diversion of Muscovite resources and Russian gold to Caffa plainly had some impact on the development of Russia. The cost of ransom slavery alone was as much as 6 million roubles each year after 1600, and the great Russian historian Vasily Klyuchevsky – writing late in the nineteenth century, at a time when Russia’s inability to keep pace with the developing west was a matter of prime political importance – observed that “if you consider how much time and spiritual and material strength was wasted in the monotonous, brutal, toilsome and painful pursuit of [the Tatar] steppe predators, one need not ask what people in Eastern Europe were doing while those of Western Europe advanced in industry and commerce, in civil life and in the arts and sciences.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Philip Owen
    In the absence of Mongols, the English and the French found each other suitable military targets!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. AaronB says:
    @Hyperborean
    I think despite your rejection of the cultural framework of your society, you have not escaped it.

    For whatever reason, I think, in America it is popular to associate cultural traits and habits with large-scale continents or religions.

    Saying ''white people'' or ''Jews'' or ''Asians'' as like this or that.

    But you do not make more refined distinctions which could make your arguments at least somewhat plausible.

    I hear you often talk about 'whites' or 'muslims' or 'Jews' or 'Asians', but I don't see you really comprehend the differences between Askenazim vs Mizrahim, secular Jews vs religious Jews, NW Europeans vs S Europeans vs E Europeans vs Americans of European descent, East Asians vs Indians vs South-East Asians etc. very much.

    Nor changes in cultural periods.

    Perhaps then you would not make statements like this:

    If the Greeks were indeed Aryans, then it seems the distinctive Aryan genius has been the glorification of physicality.

    Which is not to say that Aryans are capable of nothing higher – merely that, left to itself, the Aryan genius seems to descend into mere physicality.

    The Jewish and Asian genius, left to itself, is perhaps overly spiritual, and needs a dose of Aryan physicality to balance things out.

     

    Although perhaps your worldview is tinted by the type of cultural endgoal you seem to desire?

    So basically you’re saying one cannot say meaningful and interesting things about, say, “the West” without pointing out there are significant differences between western countries.

    This is basically a variant of “they’re not all like that” :)

    Is it really true that in Europe they have lost the intellectual chops needed to make large scale analysis? Sad, if true.

    I remember the days of the great European historians who reveled in sweeping generalizations and managed to say fascinating things – maybe this is why history writing is so often boring these days.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hyperborean

    So basically you’re saying one cannot say meaningful and interesting things about, say, “the West” without pointing out there are significant differences between western countries.
     
    Anglophones', and also other peoples (but especially Anglophones), conception of 'the West' is often very narrative-based and the stories they tell about it reveals more about themselves than what actually happened.

    I remember the days of the great European historians who reveled in sweeping generalizations and managed to say fascinating things – maybe this is why history writing is so often boring these days.
     
    Considering how you are, I am inclined to believe that what you consider 'fascinating' has an inverse relationship to truth. Many storytellers have been able to enrapture their audiences, yet they have also been known for creating elaborate fairytales which do not exist in reality.

    All of us have an eternal debt which can never be repaid to our superiors, including our ancestors. The aim is record all of humanity and to preserve their memory so that they will live for all eternity. In contrast to this creating fanciful tales of their lives merely because you found it too 'boring' would be a grave dishonour.

    Is it really true that in Europe they have lost the intellectual chops needed to make large scale analysis? Sad, if true..
     
    At first I felt angry and confused when I heard about all these things you were saying.

    But then I realised that it is meaningless to feel anything towards you other than a sense of distantness along with perhaps caution or disdain, because your 'spirituality' is merely a façade to cover up the fact that you have failed to find a genuine replacement of beliefs after your rejection of American materialism and this has left you an empty being.

    Hence, you have developed all these contrived theories to suit your not-beliefs, even though in the end they are ultimately rooted in a very American mindset.

    Arguing with you is like arguing with an omni-directional circle, and that is the whole point for you.

    And while replying to you may be meaningless, it would be saddening if an otherwise productive person became convinced by your surface-level ideas and sunk so deep that they became an empty being as well.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. AaronB says:
    @Dmitry
    All Ancient cultures would privilege physical and body - with limited sanitation (although improving with the Romans greatly), without modern medicine, and with your city's survival depending on physical fitness of its young men.

    As for Ancient India - we can see even under a caste system, for brahmins who do not fight, and yet for whom a lot of spiritual exercises are inseparated from physical exercises.

    A difference with the Greeks in their golden age, from earlier and contemporaneous societies, is amazingly good sculpture showing their physical ideals, and highly sophisticated literature describing ordinary things about their society which allows us to know it much better than other earlier/contemporaneous ancient societies (other earlier/contemporaneous societies are only writing mythology, which don't tell us anything about how they lived in ordinary life), and intercity competition (sometimes even sublimated into sport).

    Viewpoint of Nietzsche is very cool, but in an earlier article he attributes miracle of Greece to intercity competition, and its fatal end to the end of this competition. Whether emergence of Socrates and dialectics is a symptom of decline (and embodied in his physical ugliness), as he writes in later books? I have not read enough literature of Ancient Greece to write comment.

    I have read/seen plays only of Sophocles and Aristophanes, both geniuses of different kinds. There is vast difference between approach of the two authors . But whether this reflects their generational difference (and loss of piety), or difference of the personality of the authors and their genres (tragedy in Sophocles and comedy in Aristophanes)? (Aristophanes is very irreverential and sophisticated, and can give the reader a sense that he is reading something from the19th century AD, not 5th century BC).

    Well, what you are saying is obviously untrue.

    Ancient cultures differed in the importance they ascribed to the body and the interest displayed in it.

    When one culture builds elaborate religious temples and another builds statues of naked athletes, when one culture glorifies athletic pursuits and another disdains them, the difference in attitude is clear.

    I wonder if I am detecting the same kind of values-insecurity that makes the IQ crowd unquestioningly assert that all groups have the exact same goals and thus differences in outcomes can only be caused by differences in ability :)

    In other words, according to you everyone had the exact same interest in the body, but only the Greeks had the ability to express it.

    If it makes you happy to believe that :)

    Yes, Nietzsche attributed the vitality of Greek culture to the Agon in an early essay, and I believe he saw Socrates as establishing one final Agon with his dialogues.

    I tend to agree with N that Greek culture died of excessive rationality – as ours is, following the same line of development.

    But others may disagree.

    I believe N pointed out Euripides as the beginning of the decline along with Socrates and as exemplifying a more comedic and rationalistic and less tragic attitude – I interestingly, Euripides plays were considered by the ancient Greeks as the most tragic.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry

    When one culture builds elaborate religious temples and another builds statues of naked

     

    In Ancient Greece, they build "elaborate religious temples", etc - these claims are inaccurate for what Ancient Greece was actually like.

    the difference in attitude is clear.
     
    Not really.

    And especially comparing to modern world. Today the modern religious institution we can visit today and which are still active, most similar in atmosphere to how were Ancient Greek Temples - are likely active Hindu temples of today in India, and the reason is their antiquity and continuity of practice means they will have some atmosphere of the ancient world.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. @Rosie

    As a dike herself, I imagine she knows what she’s talking about.
     
    Swell, an edgedyke academic gets to speak for women now.

    Men have superior visuospatial skills, but I vehemently disagree with you that women are second-rate writers. I don't know if I'll ever get around to writing my magnum opus or not, given that I don't really give a shit about fame and fortune, but sometimes I feel like women ought to be more proprietary about our intellectual work-product. Our share-and-share-alike attitude just enables this sort of obnoxious male triumphalism.

    Women write well about relationships. Jane Austen is the classic example. This is generally boring to men (though I find it interesting).

    Likewise most women aren’t interested in adventure novels, science fiction, historical fiction, etc.

    There are some female novelists who have succeeded with both sexes. Shelley, Christie, and J.K. Rowling (not a fan of her ofc).

    I like cooking and thus come across a lot of female food bloggers (mostly SAHMs). It’s generally a real chore reading them, because every recipe starts out with an extremely boring story about the writer or her family.

    Read More
    • Replies: @songbird
    Out of curiosity, I tried to read exactly one Jane Austin book and was amazed by how horrible it seemed. I really don't get it - the plot and characters seemed really superficial, and the writing itself was not that great compared to other authors.

    I actually wrote it off, as being written in an era that was more like Roman times than our own, but then that doesn't explain why the Aeneid is so good and Austin is so bad.

    Let me say that I've enjoyed several different female writers, at least on some levels. George Elliot and Emily Bronte were very good at putting words to together, though I do not like other aspects of their writing.
    , @Daniel Chieh
    My experience is that reduced skill is just a result of women not appreciating criticism and using it constructively. Mind you, most men also don't react well to criticism to their work, and art is a particularly personal form of expression; but men are slightly better at it.

    In my old collective, which is overall very successful, there are more successful "women"(trans) than there are actual women :/

    But overall, it is a kind of fringe thing overall. Its not a "normal" thing to get obsessed with writing, neglect job opportunities, ignore family and partly drop out of society so you can obsess over minutiae of fiction, and often indulge in some form of an alcohol or caffiene habit(sometimes more). I don't think its surprising that there are more freaks overall in such an atmosphere, and women tend to be a bit less freakish. Even their freakism is more conformist, really.

    , @Rosie

    Likewise most women aren’t interested in adventure novels, science fiction, historical fiction, etc.
     
    We love them, so long as the human element is not neglected.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZY-suI8AbpY
    , @dfordoom

    Likewise most women aren’t interested in adventure novels, science fiction, historical fiction, etc.
     
    When women attempt those genres they invariably fail. Female science fiction is particularly dire. There's a lot of nonsense written about how women dominated the crime genre (the so-called Crime Queens) but it's merely feminist propaganda. Apart from Christie the women writers of detective fiction of the golden age were third-rate (Dorothy L.Sayers, Ngaio Marsh, etc).

    There's been a handful of first-rate women novelists - Austen, Emily Brontë, Charlotte Brontë. No worthwhile women poets since Sappho. No worthwhile women dramatists at all.

    In the arts generally the contribution of women has been minuscule. Women are amazingly good at dissecting relationships which is handy if you want to be a novelist but no help if you want to be a painter, architect, composer, poet, etc.

    Camille Paglia on the other hand most certainly does have a first-rate mind.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. songbird says:
    @Thorfinnsson
    Women write well about relationships. Jane Austen is the classic example. This is generally boring to men (though I find it interesting).

    Likewise most women aren't interested in adventure novels, science fiction, historical fiction, etc.

    There are some female novelists who have succeeded with both sexes. Shelley, Christie, and J.K. Rowling (not a fan of her ofc).

    I like cooking and thus come across a lot of female food bloggers (mostly SAHMs). It's generally a real chore reading them, because every recipe starts out with an extremely boring story about the writer or her family.

    Out of curiosity, I tried to read exactly one Jane Austin book and was amazed by how horrible it seemed. I really don’t get it – the plot and characters seemed really superficial, and the writing itself was not that great compared to other authors.

    I actually wrote it off, as being written in an era that was more like Roman times than our own, but then that doesn’t explain why the Aeneid is so good and Austin is so bad.

    Let me say that I’ve enjoyed several different female writers, at least on some levels. George Elliot and Emily Bronte were very good at putting words to together, though I do not like other aspects of their writing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry
    I have not read Jane Austen.

    But notice Jane Austen was writing before the novel reached its mature technological phase.

    You have to compare her writing to her contemporaries, born in her generation.

    Novel does not reach mature phase - containing all types of writing we expect when we buy in the bookshop, a typical novel - until around the mid-point of the 19th century.

    George Elliot and Emily Bronte (I have not read any of these) - but we can see their works are all written from the mid-point of the 19th century and onwards (for Eiliot), where internationally the novel is entering mature phase.

    But novel in 19th century, was like cinema in 20th century - an extremely internationally internationally, and generationally shaped art-form, which absorbed innovations and fashions with each decade of the century.

    Gender and even nationality of novelist, can often have less influence in their work, than the generation they are born in.

    Therefore, novels of 1880s can seem extremely similar across different countries, from Russia, to France, to England - but all of those very different to novels of 1810s, in the same countries.

    As films in the 1990s somehow seem more similar to each other, even in different countries, than to films of 1950s.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. Dmitry says:
    @AaronB
    Well, what you are saying is obviously untrue.

    Ancient cultures differed in the importance they ascribed to the body and the interest displayed in it.

    When one culture builds elaborate religious temples and another builds statues of naked athletes, when one culture glorifies athletic pursuits and another disdains them, the difference in attitude is clear.

    I wonder if I am detecting the same kind of values-insecurity that makes the IQ crowd unquestioningly assert that all groups have the exact same goals and thus differences in outcomes can only be caused by differences in ability :)

    In other words, according to you everyone had the exact same interest in the body, but only the Greeks had the ability to express it.

    If it makes you happy to believe that :)

    Yes, Nietzsche attributed the vitality of Greek culture to the Agon in an early essay, and I believe he saw Socrates as establishing one final Agon with his dialogues.

    I tend to agree with N that Greek culture died of excessive rationality - as ours is, following the same line of development.

    But others may disagree.

    I believe N pointed out Euripides as the beginning of the decline along with Socrates and as exemplifying a more comedic and rationalistic and less tragic attitude - I interestingly, Euripides plays were considered by the ancient Greeks as the most tragic.

    When one culture builds elaborate religious temples and another builds statues of naked

    In Ancient Greece, they build “elaborate religious temples”, etc – these claims are inaccurate for what Ancient Greece was actually like.

    the difference in attitude is clear.

    Not really.

    And especially comparing to modern world. Today the modern religious institution we can visit today and which are still active, most similar in atmosphere to how were Ancient Greek Temples – are likely active Hindu temples of today in India, and the reason is their antiquity and continuity of practice means they will have some atmosphere of the ancient world.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    But, is it your claim that ancient Greece had the same interest in the body as say ancient India or ancient Israel?

    And the corollary of this being that ancient civilizations did not differ in goals, preferences, or values but only in mastery of technique?

    I wouldn't really argue with you if this is what you thought, I am just curious.

    If this is your position, its strikingly similar to the beliefs of the IQ crowd, and I find that significant because I'm doing a sort of informal psychological profile or psychohistory of the materialist mind.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. @Thorfinnsson
    Women write well about relationships. Jane Austen is the classic example. This is generally boring to men (though I find it interesting).

    Likewise most women aren't interested in adventure novels, science fiction, historical fiction, etc.

    There are some female novelists who have succeeded with both sexes. Shelley, Christie, and J.K. Rowling (not a fan of her ofc).

    I like cooking and thus come across a lot of female food bloggers (mostly SAHMs). It's generally a real chore reading them, because every recipe starts out with an extremely boring story about the writer or her family.

    My experience is that reduced skill is just a result of women not appreciating criticism and using it constructively. Mind you, most men also don’t react well to criticism to their work, and art is a particularly personal form of expression; but men are slightly better at it.

    In my old collective, which is overall very successful, there are more successful “women”(trans) than there are actual women :/

    But overall, it is a kind of fringe thing overall. Its not a “normal” thing to get obsessed with writing, neglect job opportunities, ignore family and partly drop out of society so you can obsess over minutiae of fiction, and often indulge in some form of an alcohol or caffiene habit(sometimes more). I don’t think its surprising that there are more freaks overall in such an atmosphere, and women tend to be a bit less freakish. Even their freakism is more conformist, really.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. Dmitry says:
    @songbird
    Out of curiosity, I tried to read exactly one Jane Austin book and was amazed by how horrible it seemed. I really don't get it - the plot and characters seemed really superficial, and the writing itself was not that great compared to other authors.

    I actually wrote it off, as being written in an era that was more like Roman times than our own, but then that doesn't explain why the Aeneid is so good and Austin is so bad.

    Let me say that I've enjoyed several different female writers, at least on some levels. George Elliot and Emily Bronte were very good at putting words to together, though I do not like other aspects of their writing.

    I have not read Jane Austen.

    But notice Jane Austen was writing before the novel reached its mature technological phase.

    You have to compare her writing to her contemporaries, born in her generation.

    Novel does not reach mature phase – containing all types of writing we expect when we buy in the bookshop, a typical novel – until around the mid-point of the 19th century.

    George Elliot and Emily Bronte (I have not read any of these) – but we can see their works are all written from the mid-point of the 19th century and onwards (for Eiliot), where internationally the novel is entering mature phase.

    But novel in 19th century, was like cinema in 20th century – an extremely internationally internationally, and generationally shaped art-form, which absorbed innovations and fashions with each decade of the century.

    Gender and even nationality of novelist, can often have less influence in their work, than the generation they are born in.

    Therefore, novels of 1880s can seem extremely similar across different countries, from Russia, to France, to England – but all of those very different to novels of 1810s, in the same countries.

    As films in the 1990s somehow seem more similar to each other, even in different countries, than to films of 1950s.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    The quality of prose has been decreasing since the mid-1900s. Compare any modern short story to, for example, R.E. Howard's stories in terms of verbiage and feel. There are some things which are less possible these days, of course, like "writing" the same story three times and selling it with slight variations(unless you work for Harlequin, heh). But a lot of polish has gone away with the rush for publication.

    Incidentally on that front: Mr. Karlin! I hear a new Eisenhorn story has been released. I shall read it and let you know.

    , @songbird
    That's very true - there was an evolution. Part of my thoughts were about how technology itself may have influenced the technical level of novels. Jane Austen hadn't rode a train or been on a steamship or received a telegram. I imagine that later decades helped make some innovations possible. Increasing literacy and cheap transportation (to distribute magazines) perhaps helped short stories gain traction.

    It's an effect that is easy to perceive in some ways. Moving towards 1900, you start seeing a lot of multiple perspective novels like Treasure Island and Dracula. In the latter, if I recall correctly, there was one chapter that was said to be a phonograph recording. Settings were probably influenced in some way by travel.
    , @Yevardian
    I don't think that's true. Measures of quality stay constant throughout time, ie a bad or good film or book today will have had the same intrinsic worth as when it was created.
    On Austen, I have only read Emma, which I recall enjoying, which I must have as I read it in 2 consecutive days. Obviously if one reads novels for 'social criticism', big ideas, political analogies or other such anti-artistic BS they won't find much in Austen, but she's a pleasant writer.
    I remember having the impression that her writing style would translate very badly from English to any other language.

    Female sci-fi? I liked K.A. Applegate's books when I was very young, particularly the Remnants series, though admittedly 'science' component was very low. Perhaps irrelevant, since I find 'hard' sci-fi a tremendous bore anyway (Asimov, 40K or the Strugatsky's are hardly 'hard' scifi). In a very real sense its unfair to expect any woman to write anything on the level of Lermontov or Goethe anyway.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. @AaronB
    So basically you're saying one cannot say meaningful and interesting things about, say, "the West" without pointing out there are significant differences between western countries.

    This is basically a variant of "they're not all like that" :)

    Is it really true that in Europe they have lost the intellectual chops needed to make large scale analysis? Sad, if true.

    I remember the days of the great European historians who reveled in sweeping generalizations and managed to say fascinating things - maybe this is why history writing is so often boring these days.

    So basically you’re saying one cannot say meaningful and interesting things about, say, “the West” without pointing out there are significant differences between western countries.

    Anglophones’, and also other peoples (but especially Anglophones), conception of ‘the West’ is often very narrative-based and the stories they tell about it reveals more about themselves than what actually happened.

    I remember the days of the great European historians who reveled in sweeping generalizations and managed to say fascinating things – maybe this is why history writing is so often boring these days.

    Considering how you are, I am inclined to believe that what you consider ‘fascinating’ has an inverse relationship to truth. Many storytellers have been able to enrapture their audiences, yet they have also been known for creating elaborate fairytales which do not exist in reality.

    All of us have an eternal debt which can never be repaid to our superiors, including our ancestors. The aim is record all of humanity and to preserve their memory so that they will live for all eternity. In contrast to this creating fanciful tales of their lives merely because you found it too ‘boring’ would be a grave dishonour.

    Is it really true that in Europe they have lost the intellectual chops needed to make large scale analysis? Sad, if true..

    At first I felt angry and confused when I heard about all these things you were saying.

    But then I realised that it is meaningless to feel anything towards you other than a sense of distantness along with perhaps caution or disdain, because your ‘spirituality’ is merely a façade to cover up the fact that you have failed to find a genuine replacement of beliefs after your rejection of American materialism and this has left you an empty being.

    Hence, you have developed all these contrived theories to suit your not-beliefs, even though in the end they are ultimately rooted in a very American mindset.

    Arguing with you is like arguing with an omni-directional circle, and that is the whole point for you.

    And while replying to you may be meaningless, it would be saddening if an otherwise productive person became convinced by your surface-level ideas and sunk so deep that they became an empty being as well.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    Who, that was a pretty intense response to a fairly innocuous comment of mine :)

    Not everything has to be a fight.

    Look, I appreciate your point that details are important and can get lost or papered over when we make generalizations. It's a fair point.

    But at the same time, I think its pretty standard practice to make generalizations about large units, and that when you analyze something you can approach it from different levels of detail.

    Sometimes it's interesting to analyze "the Jews" and say interesting things about that people at that level of generality. Other times it may make sense to break it down further into Jewish sub-groups.

    So it really depends on what you're trying to do.
    , @utu
    Good diagnosis. Good job! It is possible that there is also a bad faith or intentionally destructive streak.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. Rosie says:
    @Thorfinnsson
    Women write well about relationships. Jane Austen is the classic example. This is generally boring to men (though I find it interesting).

    Likewise most women aren't interested in adventure novels, science fiction, historical fiction, etc.

    There are some female novelists who have succeeded with both sexes. Shelley, Christie, and J.K. Rowling (not a fan of her ofc).

    I like cooking and thus come across a lot of female food bloggers (mostly SAHMs). It's generally a real chore reading them, because every recipe starts out with an extremely boring story about the writer or her family.

    Likewise most women aren’t interested in adventure novels, science fiction, historical fiction, etc.

    We love them, so long as the human element is not neglected.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    I rest my case.

    Vox Day has written extensively about this phenomenon.

    A soap opera in space isn't science fiction.
    , @dfordoom


    Likewise most women aren’t interested in adventure novels, science fiction, historical fiction, etc.
     
    We love them, so long as the human element is not neglected.
     
    Which neatly demonstrates that women don't understand those genres at all.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. @Dmitry
    I have not read Jane Austen.

    But notice Jane Austen was writing before the novel reached its mature technological phase.

    You have to compare her writing to her contemporaries, born in her generation.

    Novel does not reach mature phase - containing all types of writing we expect when we buy in the bookshop, a typical novel - until around the mid-point of the 19th century.

    George Elliot and Emily Bronte (I have not read any of these) - but we can see their works are all written from the mid-point of the 19th century and onwards (for Eiliot), where internationally the novel is entering mature phase.

    But novel in 19th century, was like cinema in 20th century - an extremely internationally internationally, and generationally shaped art-form, which absorbed innovations and fashions with each decade of the century.

    Gender and even nationality of novelist, can often have less influence in their work, than the generation they are born in.

    Therefore, novels of 1880s can seem extremely similar across different countries, from Russia, to France, to England - but all of those very different to novels of 1810s, in the same countries.

    As films in the 1990s somehow seem more similar to each other, even in different countries, than to films of 1950s.

    The quality of prose has been decreasing since the mid-1900s. Compare any modern short story to, for example, R.E. Howard’s stories in terms of verbiage and feel. There are some things which are less possible these days, of course, like “writing” the same story three times and selling it with slight variations(unless you work for Harlequin, heh). But a lot of polish has gone away with the rush for publication.

    Incidentally on that front: Mr. Karlin! I hear a new Eisenhorn story has been released. I shall read it and let you know.

    Read More
    • Replies: @songbird

    The quality of prose has been decreasing since the mid-1900s
     
    I think this is especially true of sci-fi which used to be taut, possibly from their being more of a space constraint from it be printed in magazines. Heinlein himself shows an obvious decline starting in the late '50s or so, IMO.

    I've also wondered if it was drugs or the aging of old writers, or success. For example, Heinlein used to write under a lot of editorial constraints and he probably needed them to be an effective writer.
    , @Talha
    Languages, like civilizations, have their apex periods and decline.

    Peace.
    , @dfordoom

    The quality of prose has been decreasing since the mid-1900s.
     
    The quality of art and literature in general has been declining for a century. It's one of the signs that our civilisation has entered the phase of terminal decadence.
    , @Yevardian
    A lot of this decline is simply attributable to the fact that real writing talents have been drawn to the far more lucrative fields of film and television for a long time now.
    'Big fiction' in the modern era tends to attract pretentious mediocrities like Thomas Pynchon, rather than figures like Ingmar Bergman or David Chase.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. AaronB says:
    @Hyperborean

    So basically you’re saying one cannot say meaningful and interesting things about, say, “the West” without pointing out there are significant differences between western countries.
     
    Anglophones', and also other peoples (but especially Anglophones), conception of 'the West' is often very narrative-based and the stories they tell about it reveals more about themselves than what actually happened.

    I remember the days of the great European historians who reveled in sweeping generalizations and managed to say fascinating things – maybe this is why history writing is so often boring these days.
     
    Considering how you are, I am inclined to believe that what you consider 'fascinating' has an inverse relationship to truth. Many storytellers have been able to enrapture their audiences, yet they have also been known for creating elaborate fairytales which do not exist in reality.

    All of us have an eternal debt which can never be repaid to our superiors, including our ancestors. The aim is record all of humanity and to preserve their memory so that they will live for all eternity. In contrast to this creating fanciful tales of their lives merely because you found it too 'boring' would be a grave dishonour.

    Is it really true that in Europe they have lost the intellectual chops needed to make large scale analysis? Sad, if true..
     
    At first I felt angry and confused when I heard about all these things you were saying.

    But then I realised that it is meaningless to feel anything towards you other than a sense of distantness along with perhaps caution or disdain, because your 'spirituality' is merely a façade to cover up the fact that you have failed to find a genuine replacement of beliefs after your rejection of American materialism and this has left you an empty being.

    Hence, you have developed all these contrived theories to suit your not-beliefs, even though in the end they are ultimately rooted in a very American mindset.

    Arguing with you is like arguing with an omni-directional circle, and that is the whole point for you.

    And while replying to you may be meaningless, it would be saddening if an otherwise productive person became convinced by your surface-level ideas and sunk so deep that they became an empty being as well.

    Who, that was a pretty intense response to a fairly innocuous comment of mine :)

    Not everything has to be a fight.

    Look, I appreciate your point that details are important and can get lost or papered over when we make generalizations. It’s a fair point.

    But at the same time, I think its pretty standard practice to make generalizations about large units, and that when you analyze something you can approach it from different levels of detail.

    Sometimes it’s interesting to analyze “the Jews” and say interesting things about that people at that level of generality. Other times it may make sense to break it down further into Jewish sub-groups.

    So it really depends on what you’re trying to do.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hyperborean
    While you are able to make more nuanced and developed statements at times, at the end of the day you always return to this facile trope of Western Materialism Eastern Spirituality.

    Everything you say is merely meant to reinforce this idea, regardless of whether what you are saying is true or not. Your statements have no independent value.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. AaronB says:
    @Dmitry

    When one culture builds elaborate religious temples and another builds statues of naked

     

    In Ancient Greece, they build "elaborate religious temples", etc - these claims are inaccurate for what Ancient Greece was actually like.

    the difference in attitude is clear.
     
    Not really.

    And especially comparing to modern world. Today the modern religious institution we can visit today and which are still active, most similar in atmosphere to how were Ancient Greek Temples - are likely active Hindu temples of today in India, and the reason is their antiquity and continuity of practice means they will have some atmosphere of the ancient world.

    But, is it your claim that ancient Greece had the same interest in the body as say ancient India or ancient Israel?

    And the corollary of this being that ancient civilizations did not differ in goals, preferences, or values but only in mastery of technique?

    I wouldn’t really argue with you if this is what you thought, I am just curious.

    If this is your position, its strikingly similar to the beliefs of the IQ crowd, and I find that significant because I’m doing a sort of informal psychological profile or psychohistory of the materialist mind.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry
    No - I thought comment just shows a bit of a lack of knowledge of Ancient Greece.

    These claims about Ancient Greeks, are falsified by actual reading of texts of the Ancient Grecce, as well as any intelligent studies of them.

    It seems more like you are describing a 19th century Anglosaxon, American, image of Ancient Greece (which derived itself from much later Christian and Jewish misunderstanding of Ancient Greece, after the latter culture had become just a status symbol and prestige image).

    It's the view Americans have in high school, and expressed in cinema, rather than actual Ancient Greece of fishermen, plagues and superstitious cults.

    Compared to modern world, - all ancient people would be forced to view physical health and body of young men who fight, as a precondition for their society's survival. This is not unique.

    But if anything 5th century Athens, is most divergent, in terms the amount of expenditure in spirituality, high culture, literature, relation of gods and man, and religious festivals.

    It's far less practical, and merely "physical" or "materialist" society, than almost any until this point in history (perhaps only with exception in Ancient India). Of course, in cities like Sparta, there is less divergence in this area, although Spartans are known for their stronger and more simple religious piety.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. @Rosie

    Likewise most women aren’t interested in adventure novels, science fiction, historical fiction, etc.
     
    We love them, so long as the human element is not neglected.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZY-suI8AbpY

    I rest my case.

    Vox Day has written extensively about this phenomenon.

    A soap opera in space isn’t science fiction.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Sure it is. If Doc EE Smith wasn't SF, you might as well throw over the whole genre, because you're just picking categories to suit yourself at that point.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. Anon[202] • Disclaimer says:
    @Thorfinnsson
    I rest my case.

    Vox Day has written extensively about this phenomenon.

    A soap opera in space isn't science fiction.

    Sure it is. If Doc EE Smith wasn’t SF, you might as well throw over the whole genre, because you’re just picking categories to suit yourself at that point.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosie

    Sure it is. If Doc EE Smith wasn’t SF, you might as well throw over the whole genre, because you’re just picking categories to suit yourself at that point.
     
    Spider-Man without Mary Jane? That doesn't even make any sense.
    , @dfordoom

    Sure it is. If Doc EE Smith wasn’t SF, you might as well throw over the whole genre,

     

    Smith did not write soap operas in space. That's not the stuff Smith wrote. His work and that of his contemporaries was labelled space opera simply because it was a convenient term of abuse, just as westerns were labeled as horse operas.

    What Thorfinnson and Vox Day are talking about is the science fiction written by women that is all about relationships.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. songbird says:
    @Daniel Chieh
    The quality of prose has been decreasing since the mid-1900s. Compare any modern short story to, for example, R.E. Howard's stories in terms of verbiage and feel. There are some things which are less possible these days, of course, like "writing" the same story three times and selling it with slight variations(unless you work for Harlequin, heh). But a lot of polish has gone away with the rush for publication.

    Incidentally on that front: Mr. Karlin! I hear a new Eisenhorn story has been released. I shall read it and let you know.

    The quality of prose has been decreasing since the mid-1900s

    I think this is especially true of sci-fi which used to be taut, possibly from their being more of a space constraint from it be printed in magazines. Heinlein himself shows an obvious decline starting in the late ’50s or so, IMO.

    I’ve also wondered if it was drugs or the aging of old writers, or success. For example, Heinlein used to write under a lot of editorial constraints and he probably needed them to be an effective writer.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom


    The quality of prose has been decreasing since the mid-1900s
     
    I think this is especially true of sci-fi which used to be taut, possibly from their being more of a space constraint from it be printed in magazines.
     
    The decline started with sci-fi writers started taking themselves seriously. And, even worse, when the genre started to attract attention from academics. That's always the kiss of death.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. Talha says:
    @Daniel Chieh
    The quality of prose has been decreasing since the mid-1900s. Compare any modern short story to, for example, R.E. Howard's stories in terms of verbiage and feel. There are some things which are less possible these days, of course, like "writing" the same story three times and selling it with slight variations(unless you work for Harlequin, heh). But a lot of polish has gone away with the rush for publication.

    Incidentally on that front: Mr. Karlin! I hear a new Eisenhorn story has been released. I shall read it and let you know.

    Languages, like civilizations, have their apex periods and decline.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    The decrease in spirituality may have something to do with part of it as well: consider the awkward, confused spirituality of Stephen King's Salem's Lot to the comfortable, playful depths of anything from Tolkien.
    , @Anon
    What's that apex period for English? It seems to me that English prose can be called by and large "pretty good" from the 14th century right through to the age of television, with somewhat varying style. Incidentally if you haven't read it Ronald Knox's Let Dons Delight gives, in the service of a fictional history of Oxford, excellent samples in pastiche of most of these stages in English prose style, starting in the 1580s and ending in the 1930s.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. Dmitry says:
    @AaronB
    But, is it your claim that ancient Greece had the same interest in the body as say ancient India or ancient Israel?

    And the corollary of this being that ancient civilizations did not differ in goals, preferences, or values but only in mastery of technique?

    I wouldn't really argue with you if this is what you thought, I am just curious.

    If this is your position, its strikingly similar to the beliefs of the IQ crowd, and I find that significant because I'm doing a sort of informal psychological profile or psychohistory of the materialist mind.

    No – I thought comment just shows a bit of a lack of knowledge of Ancient Greece.

    These claims about Ancient Greeks, are falsified by actual reading of texts of the Ancient Grecce, as well as any intelligent studies of them.

    It seems more like you are describing a 19th century Anglosaxon, American, image of Ancient Greece (which derived itself from much later Christian and Jewish misunderstanding of Ancient Greece, after the latter culture had become just a status symbol and prestige image).

    It’s the view Americans have in high school, and expressed in cinema, rather than actual Ancient Greece of fishermen, plagues and superstitious cults.

    Compared to modern world, – all ancient people would be forced to view physical health and body of young men who fight, as a precondition for their society’s survival. This is not unique.

    But if anything 5th century Athens, is most divergent, in terms the amount of expenditure in spirituality, high culture, literature, relation of gods and man, and religious festivals.

    It’s far less practical, and merely “physical” or “materialist” society, than almost any until this point in history (perhaps only with exception in Ancient India). Of course, in cities like Sparta, there is less divergence in this area, although Spartans are known for their stronger and more simple religious piety.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh

    Compared to modern world, – all ancient people would be forced to view physical health and body of young men who fight, as a precondition for their society’s survival. This is not unique.

     

    I've read Art of War many, many times, but I don't recall a single verse focused on physical health of the soldiers, except in the sense that logistics is important. For a society that was pretty constantly at war, Sun Tzu was mostly focused on the OODA cycle.
    , @Anon

    It seems more like you are describing a 19th century Anglosaxon, American, image of Ancient Greece (which derived itself from much later Christian and Jewish misunderstanding of Ancient Greece, after the latter culture had become just a status symbol and prestige image).
     
    Why do you think that 19th century "Anglo-Saxons" were, by and large, less or worse acquainted with the classics than you are? Why do you think a Christian, Jewish, or Nietzschean misunderstanding of the classics is more distorted (and in what ways) than a dialectical materialist understanding?

    These are not questions I can answer, or to which I am even particularly interested in the answers. I am just providing them for critical reflection.
    , @AaronB
    Well, I am not claiming Greek culture was one-dimensional. I have said it was complex. I am merely saying that it had an unusual focus on the body and the physical.

    This is quite compatible with saying there was also superstitious, religious, spiritual elements.

    Sure, as living beings we can't ignore the body, so every culture focuses on the body to some extent. I would have thought it obvious that today we focus far more on the body than the ancient world, but you say no. That's fine.

    Now, it remains a striking fact that Greek cultural expression focused on celebrating the body more than these other ancient cultures - you can speculate all you want about how everyone must have been focused on the body, but it is a fact that compared to Jews, Indians, Egyptians, the Greeks had nude statues of athletes, gymnasium, Olympic games, etc.

    So that's simply a fact - Greek cultural output focused on the physical far more than say Jews or Indians. Now that doesn't mean Greek culture didn't also have spiritual and intellectual elements. I have already said they did.

    It is a question of where the focus is and what is distinctive - while Thucydides was pioneering "realist" history, Jews were solely interested in religious history, and Indians cared so little about the physical world that they didn't write history at all.

    Of course, the Greeks had their myths as well. I know that. It does not change what I am saying.

    Now, if you are denying that the Greeks had any unusual focus on the physical than one must explain why in every field Greek cultural output focused more on the physical, from the realism instead of religious idealism of a Thucydides to the nude statues of muscled athletes and gymnasium, than did Indian, Jewish, etc culture.

    Unless, of course, you want to suggest that Indian and Jewish religious writing and sculpture also glorifies the physical body for its own sake and is also realistic rather than idealistic.

    But I am pretty sure even you would not suggest that :)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. @Talha
    Languages, like civilizations, have their apex periods and decline.

    Peace.

    The decrease in spirituality may have something to do with part of it as well: consider the awkward, confused spirituality of Stephen King’s Salem’s Lot to the comfortable, playful depths of anything from Tolkien.

    Read More
    • Agree: Talha
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. Anon[202] • Disclaimer says:
    @Talha
    Languages, like civilizations, have their apex periods and decline.

    Peace.

    What’s that apex period for English? It seems to me that English prose can be called by and large “pretty good” from the 14th century right through to the age of television, with somewhat varying style. Incidentally if you haven’t read it Ronald Knox’s Let Dons Delight gives, in the service of a fictional history of Oxford, excellent samples in pastiche of most of these stages in English prose style, starting in the 1580s and ending in the 1930s.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha

    What’s that apex period for English?
     
    Not sure, I'm not an expert on English - my opinion isn't as relevant as others. However, I remember listening to a lecture mentioning that the true high point of English was reached during the 16th-17th centuries. Shakespeare, King Jame's Bible and other works being the notable defining moments.

    Farsi had its high point with certain poets as did Arabic, etc.

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. @Dmitry
    No - I thought comment just shows a bit of a lack of knowledge of Ancient Greece.

    These claims about Ancient Greeks, are falsified by actual reading of texts of the Ancient Grecce, as well as any intelligent studies of them.

    It seems more like you are describing a 19th century Anglosaxon, American, image of Ancient Greece (which derived itself from much later Christian and Jewish misunderstanding of Ancient Greece, after the latter culture had become just a status symbol and prestige image).

    It's the view Americans have in high school, and expressed in cinema, rather than actual Ancient Greece of fishermen, plagues and superstitious cults.

    Compared to modern world, - all ancient people would be forced to view physical health and body of young men who fight, as a precondition for their society's survival. This is not unique.

    But if anything 5th century Athens, is most divergent, in terms the amount of expenditure in spirituality, high culture, literature, relation of gods and man, and religious festivals.

    It's far less practical, and merely "physical" or "materialist" society, than almost any until this point in history (perhaps only with exception in Ancient India). Of course, in cities like Sparta, there is less divergence in this area, although Spartans are known for their stronger and more simple religious piety.

    Compared to modern world, – all ancient people would be forced to view physical health and body of young men who fight, as a precondition for their society’s survival. This is not unique.

    I’ve read Art of War many, many times, but I don’t recall a single verse focused on physical health of the soldiers, except in the sense that logistics is important. For a society that was pretty constantly at war, Sun Tzu was mostly focused on the OODA cycle.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    That just demonstrates the superiority of Greek culture - the Greeks were able to express what Sun Tzu wanted to, but couldn't.
    , @Dmitry
    In most ancient world, taken as too obvious to write that you need fit men in the army. Neither in Greek texts, do they need to write this.

    They don't give instructions on how to eat, how to drink water, how to have sex, how to pick apples from a tree, how to start a fire, either (although at least the latter features in mythology) - but all human history people have been able to do this.

    What they write about, are things not immediately clear to them.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. Anon[202] • Disclaimer says:
    @Dmitry
    No - I thought comment just shows a bit of a lack of knowledge of Ancient Greece.

    These claims about Ancient Greeks, are falsified by actual reading of texts of the Ancient Grecce, as well as any intelligent studies of them.

    It seems more like you are describing a 19th century Anglosaxon, American, image of Ancient Greece (which derived itself from much later Christian and Jewish misunderstanding of Ancient Greece, after the latter culture had become just a status symbol and prestige image).

    It's the view Americans have in high school, and expressed in cinema, rather than actual Ancient Greece of fishermen, plagues and superstitious cults.

    Compared to modern world, - all ancient people would be forced to view physical health and body of young men who fight, as a precondition for their society's survival. This is not unique.

    But if anything 5th century Athens, is most divergent, in terms the amount of expenditure in spirituality, high culture, literature, relation of gods and man, and religious festivals.

    It's far less practical, and merely "physical" or "materialist" society, than almost any until this point in history (perhaps only with exception in Ancient India). Of course, in cities like Sparta, there is less divergence in this area, although Spartans are known for their stronger and more simple religious piety.

    It seems more like you are describing a 19th century Anglosaxon, American, image of Ancient Greece (which derived itself from much later Christian and Jewish misunderstanding of Ancient Greece, after the latter culture had become just a status symbol and prestige image).

    Why do you think that 19th century “Anglo-Saxons” were, by and large, less or worse acquainted with the classics than you are? Why do you think a Christian, Jewish, or Nietzschean misunderstanding of the classics is more distorted (and in what ways) than a dialectical materialist understanding?

    These are not questions I can answer, or to which I am even particularly interested in the answers. I am just providing them for critical reflection.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry
    There are many writers in 19th century who have better knowledge of Ancient Greek writings, than almost any people today.

    But I'm talking about dominant view that enters the mainstream culture (and is acceptable within their religiously restrictive viewpoint - which went all the way to Victorian archaeologists who vandalized murals they believed were sexually pornographic) , rather than individual knowledge which was open to anyone who read the texts, and which was more common in 19th century than today.

    What we have more now is much more archaeological knowledge, and systematic knowledge. And is also much more knowledge, from very difficult studies, now about less written things like their mystery cults.

    We can also travel around so easily now and visit the Ancient sites ourselves in a few hours - which can be enlightening for readers from Northern cultures like us, who don't grow up in Greece, Italy, Israel, Turkey, etc, and (in 19th century) could often only use their imagination of these lands, which was mediated by depictions from paintings and the imagination of artists working thousands of years later.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. AaronB says:
    @Daniel Chieh

    Compared to modern world, – all ancient people would be forced to view physical health and body of young men who fight, as a precondition for their society’s survival. This is not unique.

     

    I've read Art of War many, many times, but I don't recall a single verse focused on physical health of the soldiers, except in the sense that logistics is important. For a society that was pretty constantly at war, Sun Tzu was mostly focused on the OODA cycle.

    That just demonstrates the superiority of Greek culture – the Greeks were able to express what Sun Tzu wanted to, but couldn’t.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    What does OODA cycle have to do with rippling pectoral muscles? Pang Juan was a much greater warrior than Sun Bin(who he had mutilated), but it didn't stop him from getting killed in a trap.

    In traditional folklore, Sun Bin carved the words "Pang Juan dies under this tree" on a tree at the ambush area. When Pang and his men arrived, he saw that there were carvings on the tree so he lit a torch for a closer look. At that moment, the Qi troops lying in ambush attacked and Pang Juan committed suicide under that very tree.
     
    Additionally, by tradition, Sun Bin had sworn to their mutual teacher not to kill Pang, so he fulfilled his obligations to their mentor.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. @AaronB
    That just demonstrates the superiority of Greek culture - the Greeks were able to express what Sun Tzu wanted to, but couldn't.

    What does OODA cycle have to do with rippling pectoral muscles? Pang Juan was a much greater warrior than Sun Bin(who he had mutilated), but it didn’t stop him from getting killed in a trap.

    In traditional folklore, Sun Bin carved the words “Pang Juan dies under this tree” on a tree at the ambush area. When Pang and his men arrived, he saw that there were carvings on the tree so he lit a torch for a closer look. At that moment, the Qi troops lying in ambush attacked and Pang Juan committed suicide under that very tree.

    Additionally, by tradition, Sun Bin had sworn to their mutual teacher not to kill Pang, so he fulfilled his obligations to their mentor.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    But the Greeks have similar stories of clever stratagems and ruses. What the Greeks have and the Chinese don't, is statues of nude athletes with rippling muscles in large numbers.

    Since we can take it for granted that all ancient cultures were equally preoccupied with the physical body as a matter of survival in harsh conditions, then clearly the Greeks alone were able to give expression to what was on the mind of everyone back then.

    Therefore, this makes them superior.

    The Chinese and the Jews would have liked to produce statues of nude athletes with rippling muscles, but only the Greeks were able to do so.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. Dmitry says:
    @Daniel Chieh

    Compared to modern world, – all ancient people would be forced to view physical health and body of young men who fight, as a precondition for their society’s survival. This is not unique.

     

    I've read Art of War many, many times, but I don't recall a single verse focused on physical health of the soldiers, except in the sense that logistics is important. For a society that was pretty constantly at war, Sun Tzu was mostly focused on the OODA cycle.

    In most ancient world, taken as too obvious to write that you need fit men in the army. Neither in Greek texts, do they need to write this.

    They don’t give instructions on how to eat, how to drink water, how to have sex, how to pick apples from a tree, how to start a fire, either (although at least the latter features in mythology) – but all human history people have been able to do this.

    What they write about, are things not immediately clear to them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    I think its more than they assumed that fitness was something that was largely out of their control beyond the obvious.

    The Romans actually went a bit into detail on everything, hilariously, including who was supposed to pick apples from trees, who to buy food from as a marching army and how to cook. I assume its more generalized - your better soldiers in such manuals were just listed as "elite" or "professional"(and such could be measured to have minimum expected levels of load-bearing) and more would be expected from them. Others such as levies or the like would be less relied on, and couldn't be expected to meet minimum standards anyway.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. AaronB says:
    @Dmitry
    No - I thought comment just shows a bit of a lack of knowledge of Ancient Greece.

    These claims about Ancient Greeks, are falsified by actual reading of texts of the Ancient Grecce, as well as any intelligent studies of them.

    It seems more like you are describing a 19th century Anglosaxon, American, image of Ancient Greece (which derived itself from much later Christian and Jewish misunderstanding of Ancient Greece, after the latter culture had become just a status symbol and prestige image).

    It's the view Americans have in high school, and expressed in cinema, rather than actual Ancient Greece of fishermen, plagues and superstitious cults.

    Compared to modern world, - all ancient people would be forced to view physical health and body of young men who fight, as a precondition for their society's survival. This is not unique.

    But if anything 5th century Athens, is most divergent, in terms the amount of expenditure in spirituality, high culture, literature, relation of gods and man, and religious festivals.

    It's far less practical, and merely "physical" or "materialist" society, than almost any until this point in history (perhaps only with exception in Ancient India). Of course, in cities like Sparta, there is less divergence in this area, although Spartans are known for their stronger and more simple religious piety.

    Well, I am not claiming Greek culture was one-dimensional. I have said it was complex. I am merely saying that it had an unusual focus on the body and the physical.

    This is quite compatible with saying there was also superstitious, religious, spiritual elements.

    Sure, as living beings we can’t ignore the body, so every culture focuses on the body to some extent. I would have thought it obvious that today we focus far more on the body than the ancient world, but you say no. That’s fine.

    Now, it remains a striking fact that Greek cultural expression focused on celebrating the body more than these other ancient cultures – you can speculate all you want about how everyone must have been focused on the body, but it is a fact that compared to Jews, Indians, Egyptians, the Greeks had nude statues of athletes, gymnasium, Olympic games, etc.

    So that’s simply a fact – Greek cultural output focused on the physical far more than say Jews or Indians. Now that doesn’t mean Greek culture didn’t also have spiritual and intellectual elements. I have already said they did.

    It is a question of where the focus is and what is distinctive – while Thucydides was pioneering “realist” history, Jews were solely interested in religious history, and Indians cared so little about the physical world that they didn’t write history at all.

    Of course, the Greeks had their myths as well. I know that. It does not change what I am saying.

    Now, if you are denying that the Greeks had any unusual focus on the physical than one must explain why in every field Greek cultural output focused more on the physical, from the realism instead of religious idealism of a Thucydides to the nude statues of muscled athletes and gymnasium, than did Indian, Jewish, etc culture.

    Unless, of course, you want to suggest that Indian and Jewish religious writing and sculpture also glorifies the physical body for its own sake and is also realistic rather than idealistic.

    But I am pretty sure even you would not suggest that :)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry

    fact that compared to Jews, Indians, Egyptians, the Greeks had nude statues
     
    Ancient Egyptians and Indians have huge amounts of mostly nude sculpture.

    The early Kouros in Ancient Greece, is hardly distinguishable from Ancient Egyptian, until 5th century Athens when there is an amazing artistic breakthrough.

    But most works from Sparta, for example, are clothed and primitive figures - with a few exceptions after the breakthroughs in Athens.

    As for India.

    Ancient India religions pioneered works like Kama Sutra, and religious practice (even in caste society) of non-fighting Brahmins is mainly physical exercise, in form of yoga - which is now used in the modern gym.

    As for the Ancient Israel - all we have is religious mythology. The intellectual level of the society did not reach to a higher level than these mythological texts (themselves actually very warlike and military based in the early periods).

    From the 4th century, Israel becomes heavily Hellenized, and ruins are not distinguishable from the culture they are importing.


    while Thucydides was pioneering “realist” history,
     
    Thucydides is representing a much higher level of intellectual development, leaving behind the mythological era - but he is not representative of an average person of the era.

    There is also something universal to the step he takes - as all cultures eventually develop the concept of accurate history, and historians from Thailand, to Japan, to Sweden, now try to write history, instead of mythology.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. Rosie says:
    @Anon
    Sure it is. If Doc EE Smith wasn't SF, you might as well throw over the whole genre, because you're just picking categories to suit yourself at that point.

    Sure it is. If Doc EE Smith wasn’t SF, you might as well throw over the whole genre, because you’re just picking categories to suit yourself at that point.

    Spider-Man without Mary Jane? That doesn’t even make any sense.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. Dmitry says:
    @Anon

    It seems more like you are describing a 19th century Anglosaxon, American, image of Ancient Greece (which derived itself from much later Christian and Jewish misunderstanding of Ancient Greece, after the latter culture had become just a status symbol and prestige image).
     
    Why do you think that 19th century "Anglo-Saxons" were, by and large, less or worse acquainted with the classics than you are? Why do you think a Christian, Jewish, or Nietzschean misunderstanding of the classics is more distorted (and in what ways) than a dialectical materialist understanding?

    These are not questions I can answer, or to which I am even particularly interested in the answers. I am just providing them for critical reflection.

    There are many writers in 19th century who have better knowledge of Ancient Greek writings, than almost any people today.

    But I’m talking about dominant view that enters the mainstream culture (and is acceptable within their religiously restrictive viewpoint – which went all the way to Victorian archaeologists who vandalized murals they believed were sexually pornographic) , rather than individual knowledge which was open to anyone who read the texts, and which was more common in 19th century than today.

    What we have more now is much more archaeological knowledge, and systematic knowledge. And is also much more knowledge, from very difficult studies, now about less written things like their mystery cults.

    We can also travel around so easily now and visit the Ancient sites ourselves in a few hours – which can be enlightening for readers from Northern cultures like us, who don’t grow up in Greece, Italy, Israel, Turkey, etc, and (in 19th century) could often only use their imagination of these lands, which was mediated by depictions from paintings and the imagination of artists working thousands of years later.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    I also want to make clear Dmitry that I don't discount the Greek spiritual tradition - I am very appreciative of it and have engaged with it. And Greek temples are lovely. And I don't think Greek culture was one-dimensionally about the body. It was a complex culture with many fine spiritual and intellectual elements.

    I am pointing to one rather distinctive element of Greek culture that is arguably its unique contribution to world culture - physicality, or "realism" in history, or rationalism in intellectual things, or nude athletes in sculpture, all of this is merely the development of a preoccupation with physicality - that was seized upon by northern Europeans to become the basis for the modern world.

    It is s nuanced position, Dmitry.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. AaronB says:
    @Daniel Chieh
    What does OODA cycle have to do with rippling pectoral muscles? Pang Juan was a much greater warrior than Sun Bin(who he had mutilated), but it didn't stop him from getting killed in a trap.

    In traditional folklore, Sun Bin carved the words "Pang Juan dies under this tree" on a tree at the ambush area. When Pang and his men arrived, he saw that there were carvings on the tree so he lit a torch for a closer look. At that moment, the Qi troops lying in ambush attacked and Pang Juan committed suicide under that very tree.
     
    Additionally, by tradition, Sun Bin had sworn to their mutual teacher not to kill Pang, so he fulfilled his obligations to their mentor.

    But the Greeks have similar stories of clever stratagems and ruses. What the Greeks have and the Chinese don’t, is statues of nude athletes with rippling muscles in large numbers.

    Since we can take it for granted that all ancient cultures were equally preoccupied with the physical body as a matter of survival in harsh conditions, then clearly the Greeks alone were able to give expression to what was on the mind of everyone back then.

    Therefore, this makes them superior.

    The Chinese and the Jews would have liked to produce statues of nude athletes with rippling muscles, but only the Greeks were able to do so.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Chinese can stuff their Terra Cota army since they weren't nude - take that Chinese - up yours!

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. Talha says:
    @Anon
    What's that apex period for English? It seems to me that English prose can be called by and large "pretty good" from the 14th century right through to the age of television, with somewhat varying style. Incidentally if you haven't read it Ronald Knox's Let Dons Delight gives, in the service of a fictional history of Oxford, excellent samples in pastiche of most of these stages in English prose style, starting in the 1580s and ending in the 1930s.

    What’s that apex period for English?

    Not sure, I’m not an expert on English – my opinion isn’t as relevant as others. However, I remember listening to a lecture mentioning that the true high point of English was reached during the 16th-17th centuries. Shakespeare, King Jame’s Bible and other works being the notable defining moments.

    Farsi had its high point with certain poets as did Arabic, etc.

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. Talha says:
    @AaronB
    But the Greeks have similar stories of clever stratagems and ruses. What the Greeks have and the Chinese don't, is statues of nude athletes with rippling muscles in large numbers.

    Since we can take it for granted that all ancient cultures were equally preoccupied with the physical body as a matter of survival in harsh conditions, then clearly the Greeks alone were able to give expression to what was on the mind of everyone back then.

    Therefore, this makes them superior.

    The Chinese and the Jews would have liked to produce statues of nude athletes with rippling muscles, but only the Greeks were able to do so.

    Chinese can stuff their Terra Cota army since they weren’t nude – take that Chinese – up yours!

    Peace.

    Read More
    • LOL: AaronB
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. Dmitry says:
    @AaronB
    Well, I am not claiming Greek culture was one-dimensional. I have said it was complex. I am merely saying that it had an unusual focus on the body and the physical.

    This is quite compatible with saying there was also superstitious, religious, spiritual elements.

    Sure, as living beings we can't ignore the body, so every culture focuses on the body to some extent. I would have thought it obvious that today we focus far more on the body than the ancient world, but you say no. That's fine.

    Now, it remains a striking fact that Greek cultural expression focused on celebrating the body more than these other ancient cultures - you can speculate all you want about how everyone must have been focused on the body, but it is a fact that compared to Jews, Indians, Egyptians, the Greeks had nude statues of athletes, gymnasium, Olympic games, etc.

    So that's simply a fact - Greek cultural output focused on the physical far more than say Jews or Indians. Now that doesn't mean Greek culture didn't also have spiritual and intellectual elements. I have already said they did.

    It is a question of where the focus is and what is distinctive - while Thucydides was pioneering "realist" history, Jews were solely interested in religious history, and Indians cared so little about the physical world that they didn't write history at all.

    Of course, the Greeks had their myths as well. I know that. It does not change what I am saying.

    Now, if you are denying that the Greeks had any unusual focus on the physical than one must explain why in every field Greek cultural output focused more on the physical, from the realism instead of religious idealism of a Thucydides to the nude statues of muscled athletes and gymnasium, than did Indian, Jewish, etc culture.

    Unless, of course, you want to suggest that Indian and Jewish religious writing and sculpture also glorifies the physical body for its own sake and is also realistic rather than idealistic.

    But I am pretty sure even you would not suggest that :)

    fact that compared to Jews, Indians, Egyptians, the Greeks had nude statues

    Ancient Egyptians and Indians have huge amounts of mostly nude sculpture.

    The early Kouros in Ancient Greece, is hardly distinguishable from Ancient Egyptian, until 5th century Athens when there is an amazing artistic breakthrough.

    But most works from Sparta, for example, are clothed and primitive figures – with a few exceptions after the breakthroughs in Athens.

    As for India.

    Ancient India religions pioneered works like Kama Sutra, and religious practice (even in caste society) of non-fighting Brahmins is mainly physical exercise, in form of yoga – which is now used in the modern gym.

    As for the Ancient Israel – all we have is religious mythology. The intellectual level of the society did not reach to a higher level than these mythological texts (themselves actually very warlike and military based in the early periods).

    From the 4th century, Israel becomes heavily Hellenized, and ruins are not distinguishable from the culture they are importing.

    while Thucydides was pioneering “realist” history,

    Thucydides is representing a much higher level of intellectual development, leaving behind the mythological era – but he is not representative of an average person of the era.

    There is also something universal to the step he takes – as all cultures eventually develop the concept of accurate history, and historians from Thailand, to Japan, to Sweden, now try to write history, instead of mythology.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    Indian erotic sculpture was religious, and it is not widespread. There is no celebration of the athletes body for its own sake. Egyptian, Jewish, and Indian culture was overwhelmingly religious.

    Greek culture, while also highly religious, pioneered the secular preoccupation with the body, and the physical world in general as opposed to the spiritual realm.

    As for Thucydides, the value of realistic history really depends on ones value system. There have been cultures that thought it largely not worth writing, because mans proper focus should be the spiritual realm, and not the repetitive and futile battles that characterize life in the temporal realm.

    That today everyone tries to write realistic history merely means western values have to some extent penetrates everywhere - whether that is a good thing, depends on ones value system. Nor is there any reason to believe this will be anything more than a short lived episode in the vast sweep of history.

    Personally, I see value in realistic history but I also see tremendous value in mythological history - and the complete displacement of mythology by realistic history strikes me as a tragedy of incalculable proportions.

    So for me, Thucydides accomplishment is a double edged sword - it would have been much better had it taken a position alongside mythology as just another element in mans intellectual toolkit.

    Which ties in to my earlier point that Greek physicality needs the corrective balance of Eastern spirituality or it descends into mete barbarism, and perhaps that is the next stage in the evolution of world culture.

    Indeed, Greek culture at its height was a balancing act between its indigenous physicality and foreign spiritual elements, which is what gave it such incredible vitality - northern Europeans plucked out the physical element from this rich cultural brew, but this element alone cannot serve as the basis for a high culture.

    (Btw, I include rationalism as well as realism under physicality)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. AaronB says:
    @Dmitry
    There are many writers in 19th century who have better knowledge of Ancient Greek writings, than almost any people today.

    But I'm talking about dominant view that enters the mainstream culture (and is acceptable within their religiously restrictive viewpoint - which went all the way to Victorian archaeologists who vandalized murals they believed were sexually pornographic) , rather than individual knowledge which was open to anyone who read the texts, and which was more common in 19th century than today.

    What we have more now is much more archaeological knowledge, and systematic knowledge. And is also much more knowledge, from very difficult studies, now about less written things like their mystery cults.

    We can also travel around so easily now and visit the Ancient sites ourselves in a few hours - which can be enlightening for readers from Northern cultures like us, who don't grow up in Greece, Italy, Israel, Turkey, etc, and (in 19th century) could often only use their imagination of these lands, which was mediated by depictions from paintings and the imagination of artists working thousands of years later.

    I also want to make clear Dmitry that I don’t discount the Greek spiritual tradition – I am very appreciative of it and have engaged with it. And Greek temples are lovely. And I don’t think Greek culture was one-dimensionally about the body. It was a complex culture with many fine spiritual and intellectual elements.

    I am pointing to one rather distinctive element of Greek culture that is arguably its unique contribution to world culture – physicality, or “realism” in history, or rationalism in intellectual things, or nude athletes in sculpture, all of this is merely the development of a preoccupation with physicality – that was seized upon by northern Europeans to become the basis for the modern world.

    It is s nuanced position, Dmitry.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. @Dmitry
    In most ancient world, taken as too obvious to write that you need fit men in the army. Neither in Greek texts, do they need to write this.

    They don't give instructions on how to eat, how to drink water, how to have sex, how to pick apples from a tree, how to start a fire, either (although at least the latter features in mythology) - but all human history people have been able to do this.

    What they write about, are things not immediately clear to them.

    I think its more than they assumed that fitness was something that was largely out of their control beyond the obvious.

    The Romans actually went a bit into detail on everything, hilariously, including who was supposed to pick apples from trees, who to buy food from as a marching army and how to cook. I assume its more generalized – your better soldiers in such manuals were just listed as “elite” or “professional”(and such could be measured to have minimum expected levels of load-bearing) and more would be expected from them. Others such as levies or the like would be less relied on, and couldn’t be expected to meet minimum standards anyway.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. AaronB says:
    @Dmitry

    fact that compared to Jews, Indians, Egyptians, the Greeks had nude statues
     
    Ancient Egyptians and Indians have huge amounts of mostly nude sculpture.

    The early Kouros in Ancient Greece, is hardly distinguishable from Ancient Egyptian, until 5th century Athens when there is an amazing artistic breakthrough.

    But most works from Sparta, for example, are clothed and primitive figures - with a few exceptions after the breakthroughs in Athens.

    As for India.

    Ancient India religions pioneered works like Kama Sutra, and religious practice (even in caste society) of non-fighting Brahmins is mainly physical exercise, in form of yoga - which is now used in the modern gym.

    As for the Ancient Israel - all we have is religious mythology. The intellectual level of the society did not reach to a higher level than these mythological texts (themselves actually very warlike and military based in the early periods).

    From the 4th century, Israel becomes heavily Hellenized, and ruins are not distinguishable from the culture they are importing.


    while Thucydides was pioneering “realist” history,
     
    Thucydides is representing a much higher level of intellectual development, leaving behind the mythological era - but he is not representative of an average person of the era.

    There is also something universal to the step he takes - as all cultures eventually develop the concept of accurate history, and historians from Thailand, to Japan, to Sweden, now try to write history, instead of mythology.

    Indian erotic sculpture was religious, and it is not widespread. There is no celebration of the athletes body for its own sake. Egyptian, Jewish, and Indian culture was overwhelmingly religious.

    Greek culture, while also highly religious, pioneered the secular preoccupation with the body, and the physical world in general as opposed to the spiritual realm.

    As for Thucydides, the value of realistic history really depends on ones value system. There have been cultures that thought it largely not worth writing, because mans proper focus should be the spiritual realm, and not the repetitive and futile battles that characterize life in the temporal realm.

    That today everyone tries to write realistic history merely means western values have to some extent penetrates everywhere – whether that is a good thing, depends on ones value system. Nor is there any reason to believe this will be anything more than a short lived episode in the vast sweep of history.

    Personally, I see value in realistic history but I also see tremendous value in mythological history – and the complete displacement of mythology by realistic history strikes me as a tragedy of incalculable proportions.

    So for me, Thucydides accomplishment is a double edged sword – it would have been much better had it taken a position alongside mythology as just another element in mans intellectual toolkit.

    Which ties in to my earlier point that Greek physicality needs the corrective balance of Eastern spirituality or it descends into mete barbarism, and perhaps that is the next stage in the evolution of world culture.

    Indeed, Greek culture at its height was a balancing act between its indigenous physicality and foreign spiritual elements, which is what gave it such incredible vitality – northern Europeans plucked out the physical element from this rich cultural brew, but this element alone cannot serve as the basis for a high culture.

    (Btw, I include rationalism as well as realism under physicality)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry

    pioneered the secular preoccupation with the body, and the physical world in general as opposed to the spiritual realm.
     
    This is not secular - it is not even existing in this era - a division into two separating categories. This is a categorization only introduced later by history.

    That today everyone tries to write realistic history merely means western values have to some extent penetrates everywhere
     
    Why? It's inevitable that people will - regardless if Japanese or Thai - at one point, want to know accurately what happened. It's something you can even remember as a child - when your friend is telling entertaining stories, but at some point you need to know what actually happened (if there is a dispute, or argument between two people), or your parents want to know why the chocolate cake was eaten.

    Indeed, Greek culture at its height was a balancing act between its indigenous physicality and foreign spiritual elements,

     

    Why do you get the division from indigenous physical and foreign spiritual?

    The religion was indigenous, and derived from older Mycenaean and even some Minoan mythology (although elements like human sacrifice long surpassed, but animal sacrifice continuing even in classical Athens).

    The intellectual development occurred also indigenously, but only among small segments of urbanized elite - not peasants in the fields, slaves or fishermen.

    In terms of religious sophistication, Ancient Greece is kind of primitive compared to India of even the same era, probably partly because they had inherited such old religion (most of their gods already created by Mycenaeans, during Bronze Age).

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. Dmitry says:
    @AaronB
    Indian erotic sculpture was religious, and it is not widespread. There is no celebration of the athletes body for its own sake. Egyptian, Jewish, and Indian culture was overwhelmingly religious.

    Greek culture, while also highly religious, pioneered the secular preoccupation with the body, and the physical world in general as opposed to the spiritual realm.

    As for Thucydides, the value of realistic history really depends on ones value system. There have been cultures that thought it largely not worth writing, because mans proper focus should be the spiritual realm, and not the repetitive and futile battles that characterize life in the temporal realm.

    That today everyone tries to write realistic history merely means western values have to some extent penetrates everywhere - whether that is a good thing, depends on ones value system. Nor is there any reason to believe this will be anything more than a short lived episode in the vast sweep of history.

    Personally, I see value in realistic history but I also see tremendous value in mythological history - and the complete displacement of mythology by realistic history strikes me as a tragedy of incalculable proportions.

    So for me, Thucydides accomplishment is a double edged sword - it would have been much better had it taken a position alongside mythology as just another element in mans intellectual toolkit.

    Which ties in to my earlier point that Greek physicality needs the corrective balance of Eastern spirituality or it descends into mete barbarism, and perhaps that is the next stage in the evolution of world culture.

    Indeed, Greek culture at its height was a balancing act between its indigenous physicality and foreign spiritual elements, which is what gave it such incredible vitality - northern Europeans plucked out the physical element from this rich cultural brew, but this element alone cannot serve as the basis for a high culture.

    (Btw, I include rationalism as well as realism under physicality)

    pioneered the secular preoccupation with the body, and the physical world in general as opposed to the spiritual realm.

    This is not secular – it is not even existing in this era – a division into two separating categories. This is a categorization only introduced later by history.

    That today everyone tries to write realistic history merely means western values have to some extent penetrates everywhere

    Why? It’s inevitable that people will – regardless if Japanese or Thai – at one point, want to know accurately what happened. It’s something you can even remember as a child – when your friend is telling entertaining stories, but at some point you need to know what actually happened (if there is a dispute, or argument between two people), or your parents want to know why the chocolate cake was eaten.

    Indeed, Greek culture at its height was a balancing act between its indigenous physicality and foreign spiritual elements,

    Why do you get the division from indigenous physical and foreign spiritual?

    The religion was indigenous, and derived from older Mycenaean and even some Minoan mythology (although elements like human sacrifice long surpassed, but animal sacrifice continuing even in classical Athens).

    The intellectual development occurred also indigenously, but only among small segments of urbanized elite – not peasants in the fields, slaves or fishermen.

    In terms of religious sophistication, Ancient Greece is kind of primitive compared to India of even the same era, probably partly because they had inherited such old religion (most of their gods already created by Mycenaeans, during Bronze Age).

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    True, the concept of the secular may be a classification that developed later, but the classification system does not create the phenomena it describes - it merely describes it. So the facts are the same.

    As for realistic history, we see that it is not inevitable. Jews, for instance, never developed a cultural tradition of realistic history despite being exposed to Greeks and Romans. Indians wrote even less history than Jews. They just didn't think it was that important. Sure, a child may at some point want to know what really happened, but realistic history is a rigorous discipline that requires enormous effort, time, and mental discipline of a kind that may interfere with one's spiritual pursuits, like training oneself to not think in terms of religious or mythological significance - for a culture that is primarily focused on the spiritual realm, this enormous investment of time, energy, and mental re-training can only detract from the main purpose of human life.

    Furthermore, to the religious mind mythology is in some sense true -"what really happened" - and idealism is not clearly separated from realism. That distinction requires a special purpose - domination of the physical world by subtracting spiritual factors from consideration. To a culture whose main purpose is spiritual, such a distinction would never arise.

    You are doing what the IQ people do - projecting your values onto everyone. My emerging portrait of the materialist mind tells me that materialists are disturbed that others may not share their values, and feel it necessary to assume everyone must, and snuggle in this assumption as if it were proven fact.

    Why do I say physicality was indigenous but spirituality foreign? Well, the physicality is what appears nowhere else, so it must be the indigenous Greek genius. And we have records of foreign spiritual elements having huge impact on Greece, from the Egyptians to the God Pan, who was considered a wild, Asiatic, foreign God that menaced Greek rationalism. Pythagoreanism displays many Indian elements, and Plato and his successors describe a spirituality that is remarkably Indian in its main elements. Greece was perched on the edge of a vast Oriental world with which it was constantly trading and undoubtedly received influences from. Greeks would go to Egypt to acquire wisdom. Of cohrse, in this rich brew there were undoubtedly indigenous Greek religious elements as well, as we see with their mythology.It was a thick melange.

    Yes, the Greek intellectual tradition was an elite production, but that is always the case, today as well.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. AaronB says:
    @Dmitry

    pioneered the secular preoccupation with the body, and the physical world in general as opposed to the spiritual realm.
     
    This is not secular - it is not even existing in this era - a division into two separating categories. This is a categorization only introduced later by history.

    That today everyone tries to write realistic history merely means western values have to some extent penetrates everywhere
     
    Why? It's inevitable that people will - regardless if Japanese or Thai - at one point, want to know accurately what happened. It's something you can even remember as a child - when your friend is telling entertaining stories, but at some point you need to know what actually happened (if there is a dispute, or argument between two people), or your parents want to know why the chocolate cake was eaten.

    Indeed, Greek culture at its height was a balancing act between its indigenous physicality and foreign spiritual elements,

     

    Why do you get the division from indigenous physical and foreign spiritual?

    The religion was indigenous, and derived from older Mycenaean and even some Minoan mythology (although elements like human sacrifice long surpassed, but animal sacrifice continuing even in classical Athens).

    The intellectual development occurred also indigenously, but only among small segments of urbanized elite - not peasants in the fields, slaves or fishermen.

    In terms of religious sophistication, Ancient Greece is kind of primitive compared to India of even the same era, probably partly because they had inherited such old religion (most of their gods already created by Mycenaeans, during Bronze Age).

    True, the concept of the secular may be a classification that developed later, but the classification system does not create the phenomena it describes – it merely describes it. So the facts are the same.

    As for realistic history, we see that it is not inevitable. Jews, for instance, never developed a cultural tradition of realistic history despite being exposed to Greeks and Romans. Indians wrote even less history than Jews. They just didn’t think it was that important. Sure, a child may at some point want to know what really happened, but realistic history is a rigorous discipline that requires enormous effort, time, and mental discipline of a kind that may interfere with one’s spiritual pursuits, like training oneself to not think in terms of religious or mythological significance – for a culture that is primarily focused on the spiritual realm, this enormous investment of time, energy, and mental re-training can only detract from the main purpose of human life.

    Furthermore, to the religious mind mythology is in some sense true -”what really happened” – and idealism is not clearly separated from realism. That distinction requires a special purpose – domination of the physical world by subtracting spiritual factors from consideration. To a culture whose main purpose is spiritual, such a distinction would never arise.

    You are doing what the IQ people do – projecting your values onto everyone. My emerging portrait of the materialist mind tells me that materialists are disturbed that others may not share their values, and feel it necessary to assume everyone must, and snuggle in this assumption as if it were proven fact.

    Why do I say physicality was indigenous but spirituality foreign? Well, the physicality is what appears nowhere else, so it must be the indigenous Greek genius. And we have records of foreign spiritual elements having huge impact on Greece, from the Egyptians to the God Pan, who was considered a wild, Asiatic, foreign God that menaced Greek rationalism. Pythagoreanism displays many Indian elements, and Plato and his successors describe a spirituality that is remarkably Indian in its main elements. Greece was perched on the edge of a vast Oriental world with which it was constantly trading and undoubtedly received influences from. Greeks would go to Egypt to acquire wisdom. Of cohrse, in this rich brew there were undoubtedly indigenous Greek religious elements as well, as we see with their mythology.It was a thick melange.

    Yes, the Greek intellectual tradition was an elite production, but that is always the case, today as well.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  169. songbird says:
    @Dmitry
    I have not read Jane Austen.

    But notice Jane Austen was writing before the novel reached its mature technological phase.

    You have to compare her writing to her contemporaries, born in her generation.

    Novel does not reach mature phase - containing all types of writing we expect when we buy in the bookshop, a typical novel - until around the mid-point of the 19th century.

    George Elliot and Emily Bronte (I have not read any of these) - but we can see their works are all written from the mid-point of the 19th century and onwards (for Eiliot), where internationally the novel is entering mature phase.

    But novel in 19th century, was like cinema in 20th century - an extremely internationally internationally, and generationally shaped art-form, which absorbed innovations and fashions with each decade of the century.

    Gender and even nationality of novelist, can often have less influence in their work, than the generation they are born in.

    Therefore, novels of 1880s can seem extremely similar across different countries, from Russia, to France, to England - but all of those very different to novels of 1810s, in the same countries.

    As films in the 1990s somehow seem more similar to each other, even in different countries, than to films of 1950s.

    That’s very true – there was an evolution. Part of my thoughts were about how technology itself may have influenced the technical level of novels. Jane Austen hadn’t rode a train or been on a steamship or received a telegram. I imagine that later decades helped make some innovations possible. Increasing literacy and cheap transportation (to distribute magazines) perhaps helped short stories gain traction.

    It’s an effect that is easy to perceive in some ways. Moving towards 1900, you start seeing a lot of multiple perspective novels like Treasure Island and Dracula. In the latter, if I recall correctly, there was one chapter that was said to be a phonograph recording. Settings were probably influenced in some way by travel.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  170. utu says:
    @Dmitry

    What is there to disjunction that Aristotle would not know? Would he think F v F might be T? Or that F v T might not be T? Or that T v T might be F? Get real. The law of excluded middle is central to Aristotle.

     

    His proposal of law of excluded middle uses a disjunction (and a lot of his arguments, in all his works, use on disjunctions).

    Disjunctions themselves are understood by most three year olds, and everyone who understands the meaning of the word "or". And logical processes according to disjunctions itself, may possibly even exist in corvids, octopuses, and cleverer dogs.

    Aristotle was a genius - of course he knows the implications of word "or" and many of his famous theories rely on reasoning using it. But it's not part of his syllogisms, and above syllogism itself was not introduced until early medieval times. (This syllogism first mentioned in Boethius - De Hypotheticis Syllogismis, where he has to rewrite it awkwardly as a conditional to make it match Aristotle's constrictive schema and lack of disjunction).


    You seem to have a fetish of symbolic logic.

     

    See example above. Add the symbol "v" and you don't have to be Boethius to rewrite this syllogism in Aristotle's schema, from conditional, and to awkwardly redescribe a logical step everyone uses.

    There's nothing intellectual to use symbols - symbols are just a tool.

    For example, Aristotle has endless difficult discussions about relations. Nowadays we usually describe relations most easily in terms of sets - each type of relation you can describe as a set in half a line, you can drink a litre of beer, read it again (or rewrite it as a diagram if you prefer), and still university undergraduate student will be less muddled about how the different logical relations work, than one of the greatest geniuses of the Ancient world in his famous text.

    People are now doing this in programming languages, who have not had even a basic course in set theory at university.

    Likewise, I can go faster than Usain Bolt, not through any special ability - all I need is a tool like a car.


    foundations of mathematics from which whole mathematics can be built using Aristotelian logic. There is no other logic used to build the whole of our knowledge.
     
    Don't confuse finger pointing at the moon, for the moon itself.

    Logical reasoning is found in all humans, and arguably predates human race and could be observed in some animals..

    Logic and study of logic are two different things, and you don't need the latter to use the former.

    In the Ancient World, Aristotle is one of the first people to point his finger at this moon, and see it as topic interesting to study. From a historical perspective, it's extremely impressive what has done Aristotle, but not from a practical one for a modern man.

    He is able to describe simple patterns of reasoning, while other areas (like clear reasoning about relations) cannot be done in his format.

    Philosophers and theologians are subsequently using syllogisms to write their arguments more clearly, but you could remove this use of Aristotle's format, and their arguments would not be different. E.g. Hume sometimes uses syllogisms to express his argument, sometimes not (you could rewrite the former as the latter, and it would not make any less sense - simply be less clear).

    It's only around 19th and 20th century when people start to study logic in a symbolic way, rapidly progressing and for first time discovering things which are not intuitively known, such as, you mention above in a larger narrative, in relation to maths - impossibility of logicist program without axioms. But also many other subtle discoveries discovered about how logic works.

    Main practical benefit of the work is not as independent field of discovery, but simply as a practical and engineering tool (which we use with no interesting relation to real maths), but which is powerful precisely because of simplicity and clarity of using symbols, and which allows very mentally ordinary people to build complicated and consistent systems.

    Dmitri: Aristotle’s system did not even include basic properties of disjunctions

    utu: What is there to disjunction that Aristotle would not know? Would he think F v F might be T? Or that F v T might not be T? Or that T v T might be F? Get real. The law of excluded middle is central to Aristotle.

    Dmitri: Disjunctions themselves are understood by most three year olds, and everyone who understands the meaning of the word “or”. And logical processes according to disjunctions itself, may possibly even exist in corvids, octopuses, and cleverer dogs.

    I had to ignore the rest of your comment.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  171. @Daniel Chieh
    Russia also had to keep fighting steppe barbarians, conveniently insulating the West from it.

    ...the diversion of Muscovite resources and Russian gold to Caffa plainly had some impact on the development of Russia. The cost of ransom slavery alone was as much as 6 million roubles each year after 1600, and the great Russian historian Vasily Klyuchevsky – writing late in the nineteenth century, at a time when Russia’s inability to keep pace with the developing west was a matter of prime political importance – observed that “if you consider how much time and spiritual and material strength was wasted in the monotonous, brutal, toilsome and painful pursuit of [the Tatar] steppe predators, one need not ask what people in Eastern Europe were doing while those of Western Europe advanced in industry and commerce, in civil life and in the arts and sciences.”
     

    In the absence of Mongols, the English and the French found each other suitable military targets!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hyperborean
    I am sure the Tangut would have preferred that the Mongols had behaved more like the English or French.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  172. @AaronB
    Who, that was a pretty intense response to a fairly innocuous comment of mine :)

    Not everything has to be a fight.

    Look, I appreciate your point that details are important and can get lost or papered over when we make generalizations. It's a fair point.

    But at the same time, I think its pretty standard practice to make generalizations about large units, and that when you analyze something you can approach it from different levels of detail.

    Sometimes it's interesting to analyze "the Jews" and say interesting things about that people at that level of generality. Other times it may make sense to break it down further into Jewish sub-groups.

    So it really depends on what you're trying to do.

    While you are able to make more nuanced and developed statements at times, at the end of the day you always return to this facile trope of Western Materialism Eastern Spirituality.

    Everything you say is merely meant to reinforce this idea, regardless of whether what you are saying is true or not. Your statements have no independent value.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    You are right. What I need to do is recall the West to the spiritual traditions within its own past.

    I forgot that I had resolved to do just that, and reverted to my old patterns.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. @Philip Owen
    In the absence of Mongols, the English and the French found each other suitable military targets!

    I am sure the Tangut would have preferred that the Mongols had behaved more like the English or French.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  174. utu says:
    @Hyperborean

    So basically you’re saying one cannot say meaningful and interesting things about, say, “the West” without pointing out there are significant differences between western countries.
     
    Anglophones', and also other peoples (but especially Anglophones), conception of 'the West' is often very narrative-based and the stories they tell about it reveals more about themselves than what actually happened.

    I remember the days of the great European historians who reveled in sweeping generalizations and managed to say fascinating things – maybe this is why history writing is so often boring these days.
     
    Considering how you are, I am inclined to believe that what you consider 'fascinating' has an inverse relationship to truth. Many storytellers have been able to enrapture their audiences, yet they have also been known for creating elaborate fairytales which do not exist in reality.

    All of us have an eternal debt which can never be repaid to our superiors, including our ancestors. The aim is record all of humanity and to preserve their memory so that they will live for all eternity. In contrast to this creating fanciful tales of their lives merely because you found it too 'boring' would be a grave dishonour.

    Is it really true that in Europe they have lost the intellectual chops needed to make large scale analysis? Sad, if true..
     
    At first I felt angry and confused when I heard about all these things you were saying.

    But then I realised that it is meaningless to feel anything towards you other than a sense of distantness along with perhaps caution or disdain, because your 'spirituality' is merely a façade to cover up the fact that you have failed to find a genuine replacement of beliefs after your rejection of American materialism and this has left you an empty being.

    Hence, you have developed all these contrived theories to suit your not-beliefs, even though in the end they are ultimately rooted in a very American mindset.

    Arguing with you is like arguing with an omni-directional circle, and that is the whole point for you.

    And while replying to you may be meaningless, it would be saddening if an otherwise productive person became convinced by your surface-level ideas and sunk so deep that they became an empty being as well.

    Good diagnosis. Good job! It is possible that there is also a bad faith or intentionally destructive streak.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  175. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Thorfinnsson
    Women write well about relationships. Jane Austen is the classic example. This is generally boring to men (though I find it interesting).

    Likewise most women aren't interested in adventure novels, science fiction, historical fiction, etc.

    There are some female novelists who have succeeded with both sexes. Shelley, Christie, and J.K. Rowling (not a fan of her ofc).

    I like cooking and thus come across a lot of female food bloggers (mostly SAHMs). It's generally a real chore reading them, because every recipe starts out with an extremely boring story about the writer or her family.

    Likewise most women aren’t interested in adventure novels, science fiction, historical fiction, etc.

    When women attempt those genres they invariably fail. Female science fiction is particularly dire. There’s a lot of nonsense written about how women dominated the crime genre (the so-called Crime Queens) but it’s merely feminist propaganda. Apart from Christie the women writers of detective fiction of the golden age were third-rate (Dorothy L.Sayers, Ngaio Marsh, etc).

    There’s been a handful of first-rate women novelists – Austen, Emily Brontë, Charlotte Brontë. No worthwhile women poets since Sappho. No worthwhile women dramatists at all.

    In the arts generally the contribution of women has been minuscule. Women are amazingly good at dissecting relationships which is handy if you want to be a novelist but no help if you want to be a painter, architect, composer, poet, etc.

    Camille Paglia on the other hand most certainly does have a first-rate mind.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosie

    Camille Paglia on the other hand most certainly does have a first-rate mind.

     

    No she doesn't. You mistake taboo-breaking for brilliance. This is a common error, and one this arguably at the root of our troubles.
    , @Rosie

    When women attempt those genres they invariably fail. Female science fiction is particularly dire. There’s a lot of nonsense written about how women dominated the crime genre (the so-called Crime Queens) but it’s merely feminist propaganda.
     
    Sure it is.
    , @Dmitry
    I was looking at 1810s novels to compare with Austen - one is Frankenstein, which is creation of a woman author Mary Shelley. Although there is controversy in whether her husband (also a famous writer) has contributed to the work or not.
    , @Bardon Kaldian
    There are more females among great (or significant) writers, but they are not so well known or popular: Marie de France, Maria Edgeworth, Virginia Woolf, Marguerite Yourcenar, Anna Akhmatova, Emily Dickinson, Flannery O'Connor, Sigrid Undset, Marina Tsvetaeva, Elizabeth Bishop, Willa Cather, Simone de Beauvoir, Ursula Le Guin, ...

    Of course, and the incomparable George Eliot:

    I remember how, at Cambridge, I walked with her once in the Fellows’ Garden of Trinity, on an evening of rainy May; and she, stirred somewhat beyond her wont, and taking as her text the three words which have been used so often as the inspiring trumpet-calls of men—the words God, Immortality, Duty—pronounced, with terrible earnestness, how inconceivable was the first, how unbelievable the second, and yet how peremptory and absolute the third. Never perhaps, have sterner accents affirmed the sovereignty of impersonal and unrecompensing Law. I listened, and night fell; her grave, majestic countenance turned toward me like a sibyl’s in the gloom; it was as though she withdrew from my grasp, one by one, the two scrolls of promise, and left me the third scroll only, awful with inevitable fates. And when we stood at length and parted amid that columnar circuit of the forest trees, beneath the last twilight of starless skies, I seemed to be gazing, like Titus at Jerusalem, on vacant seats and empty halls—on a sanctuary with no Presence to hallow it, and heaven left lonely of a God.

    Frederic Myers 1881, on George Eliot's visit to Cambridge 1873
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  176. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Rosie

    Likewise most women aren’t interested in adventure novels, science fiction, historical fiction, etc.
     
    We love them, so long as the human element is not neglected.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZY-suI8AbpY

    Likewise most women aren’t interested in adventure novels, science fiction, historical fiction, etc.

    We love them, so long as the human element is not neglected.

    Which neatly demonstrates that women don’t understand those genres at all.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosie

    Which neatly demonstrates that women don’t understand those genres at all.

    Oh my goodness. I couldn't disagree more.
     

     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  177. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Daniel Chieh
    The quality of prose has been decreasing since the mid-1900s. Compare any modern short story to, for example, R.E. Howard's stories in terms of verbiage and feel. There are some things which are less possible these days, of course, like "writing" the same story three times and selling it with slight variations(unless you work for Harlequin, heh). But a lot of polish has gone away with the rush for publication.

    Incidentally on that front: Mr. Karlin! I hear a new Eisenhorn story has been released. I shall read it and let you know.

    The quality of prose has been decreasing since the mid-1900s.

    The quality of art and literature in general has been declining for a century. It’s one of the signs that our civilisation has entered the phase of terminal decadence.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  178. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Anon
    Sure it is. If Doc EE Smith wasn't SF, you might as well throw over the whole genre, because you're just picking categories to suit yourself at that point.

    Sure it is. If Doc EE Smith wasn’t SF, you might as well throw over the whole genre,

    Smith did not write soap operas in space. That’s not the stuff Smith wrote. His work and that of his contemporaries was labelled space opera simply because it was a convenient term of abuse, just as westerns were labeled as horse operas.

    What Thorfinnson and Vox Day are talking about is the science fiction written by women that is all about relationships.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    Someone really should make an entirely sung science fiction piece, a proper space opera. Repo: Genetic Opera was hilarious and awesome, but more cyberpunk than sci-fi in its construction.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  179. dfordoom says: • Website
    @songbird

    The quality of prose has been decreasing since the mid-1900s
     
    I think this is especially true of sci-fi which used to be taut, possibly from their being more of a space constraint from it be printed in magazines. Heinlein himself shows an obvious decline starting in the late '50s or so, IMO.

    I've also wondered if it was drugs or the aging of old writers, or success. For example, Heinlein used to write under a lot of editorial constraints and he probably needed them to be an effective writer.

    The quality of prose has been decreasing since the mid-1900s

    I think this is especially true of sci-fi which used to be taut, possibly from their being more of a space constraint from it be printed in magazines.

    The decline started with sci-fi writers started taking themselves seriously. And, even worse, when the genre started to attract attention from academics. That’s always the kiss of death.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  180. Yevardian says:
    @Dmitry
    I have not read Jane Austen.

    But notice Jane Austen was writing before the novel reached its mature technological phase.

    You have to compare her writing to her contemporaries, born in her generation.

    Novel does not reach mature phase - containing all types of writing we expect when we buy in the bookshop, a typical novel - until around the mid-point of the 19th century.

    George Elliot and Emily Bronte (I have not read any of these) - but we can see their works are all written from the mid-point of the 19th century and onwards (for Eiliot), where internationally the novel is entering mature phase.

    But novel in 19th century, was like cinema in 20th century - an extremely internationally internationally, and generationally shaped art-form, which absorbed innovations and fashions with each decade of the century.

    Gender and even nationality of novelist, can often have less influence in their work, than the generation they are born in.

    Therefore, novels of 1880s can seem extremely similar across different countries, from Russia, to France, to England - but all of those very different to novels of 1810s, in the same countries.

    As films in the 1990s somehow seem more similar to each other, even in different countries, than to films of 1950s.

    I don’t think that’s true. Measures of quality stay constant throughout time, ie a bad or good film or book today will have had the same intrinsic worth as when it was created.
    On Austen, I have only read Emma, which I recall enjoying, which I must have as I read it in 2 consecutive days. Obviously if one reads novels for ‘social criticism’, big ideas, political analogies or other such anti-artistic BS they won’t find much in Austen, but she’s a pleasant writer.
    I remember having the impression that her writing style would translate very badly from English to any other language.

    Female sci-fi? I liked K.A. Applegate’s books when I was very young, particularly the Remnants series, though admittedly ‘science’ component was very low. Perhaps irrelevant, since I find ‘hard’ sci-fi a tremendous bore anyway (Asimov, 40K or the Strugatsky’s are hardly ‘hard’ scifi). In a very real sense its unfair to expect any woman to write anything on the level of Lermontov or Goethe anyway.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry

    On Austen, I have only read Emma, which I recall enjoying, which I must have as I read it in 2 consecutive days. Obviously if
     
    The point is, if you compare books of author Austen born in 1775, and published in 1810s - they will be far more similar to novels of authors book in 1770s, and published in 1810s, than to any other writers (especially later writers, as the novel developed very rapidly over the century).

    Without understanding of history of the art form, people can be very confused. For example, of course she will not likely have "political analogues and social criticism" - as this was only feature of the novel in later decades in the century.

    Also people who think art can be removed from its era and development history - it's not true.

    Unless you will ignore why Haydn and Mozart sound so similar, and both completely different to Palestrina.

    Or why films of 1920s are so similar to each other, and so different to those of 1990s.

    Why paintings of 1890s are far more similar to each other (across different artists), than to those of 1790s?

    In some eras, development of the art form has greater difference, than individuality of the artist. But only across eras when an art form is developing rapidly. Bebop jazz of 1950s, is very different to swing jazz of 1930s. But is there a difference between jazz of 1990s and jazz 2000s? (no - as art form is not in process of rapid development anymore).

    Question whether something good in 1810, is always good throughout history, is a different topic. Probably yes, but often what people without sense of context, perceive as good or bad in the work, might be more a product of its era, than something unusual in artist themselves.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  181. Yevardian says:
    @Daniel Chieh
    The quality of prose has been decreasing since the mid-1900s. Compare any modern short story to, for example, R.E. Howard's stories in terms of verbiage and feel. There are some things which are less possible these days, of course, like "writing" the same story three times and selling it with slight variations(unless you work for Harlequin, heh). But a lot of polish has gone away with the rush for publication.

    Incidentally on that front: Mr. Karlin! I hear a new Eisenhorn story has been released. I shall read it and let you know.

    A lot of this decline is simply attributable to the fact that real writing talents have been drawn to the far more lucrative fields of film and television for a long time now.
    ‘Big fiction’ in the modern era tends to attract pretentious mediocrities like Thomas Pynchon, rather than figures like Ingmar Bergman or David Chase.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  182. It is enough to say that Greeks “invented” man as a social individual & that no other high civilization came with this truly revolutionary ideal. Man is individual, both rational & irrational. Individualism, freedom, democracy…. this is what truly modern world is about.

    And it hadn’t come (nor could have come) from any other high civilization, let alone anything else…

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    Agreed.

    And whether one thinks this is a good thing depends on ones assessment of individualism and the modern world.
    , @Hyperborean
    The only freedom worth experiencing is the freedom of submitting to a higher purpose and transcending one's base form.

    Otherwise, like animals, humans' freedom will merely be their chains.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  183. Rosie says:
    @dfordoom


    Likewise most women aren’t interested in adventure novels, science fiction, historical fiction, etc.
     
    We love them, so long as the human element is not neglected.
     
    Which neatly demonstrates that women don't understand those genres at all.

    Which neatly demonstrates that women don’t understand those genres at all.

    Oh my goodness. I couldn’t disagree more.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  184. Rosie says:
    @dfordoom

    Likewise most women aren’t interested in adventure novels, science fiction, historical fiction, etc.
     
    When women attempt those genres they invariably fail. Female science fiction is particularly dire. There's a lot of nonsense written about how women dominated the crime genre (the so-called Crime Queens) but it's merely feminist propaganda. Apart from Christie the women writers of detective fiction of the golden age were third-rate (Dorothy L.Sayers, Ngaio Marsh, etc).

    There's been a handful of first-rate women novelists - Austen, Emily Brontë, Charlotte Brontë. No worthwhile women poets since Sappho. No worthwhile women dramatists at all.

    In the arts generally the contribution of women has been minuscule. Women are amazingly good at dissecting relationships which is handy if you want to be a novelist but no help if you want to be a painter, architect, composer, poet, etc.

    Camille Paglia on the other hand most certainly does have a first-rate mind.

    Camille Paglia on the other hand most certainly does have a first-rate mind.

    No she doesn’t. You mistake taboo-breaking for brilliance. This is a common error, and one this arguably at the root of our troubles.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  185. Rosie says:
    @dfordoom

    Likewise most women aren’t interested in adventure novels, science fiction, historical fiction, etc.
     
    When women attempt those genres they invariably fail. Female science fiction is particularly dire. There's a lot of nonsense written about how women dominated the crime genre (the so-called Crime Queens) but it's merely feminist propaganda. Apart from Christie the women writers of detective fiction of the golden age were third-rate (Dorothy L.Sayers, Ngaio Marsh, etc).

    There's been a handful of first-rate women novelists - Austen, Emily Brontë, Charlotte Brontë. No worthwhile women poets since Sappho. No worthwhile women dramatists at all.

    In the arts generally the contribution of women has been minuscule. Women are amazingly good at dissecting relationships which is handy if you want to be a novelist but no help if you want to be a painter, architect, composer, poet, etc.

    Camille Paglia on the other hand most certainly does have a first-rate mind.

    When women attempt those genres they invariably fail. Female science fiction is particularly dire. There’s a lot of nonsense written about how women dominated the crime genre (the so-called Crime Queens) but it’s merely feminist propaganda.

    Sure it is.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosie
    BTW Mr. Doom, I see you are a proponent of forced prostitution (arranged marriage). Hence your need to establish that women are only good for sex, and can't do anything else. It's prostitute or parasite, as far as you're concerned. I'm surprised Unz Dads haven't run you off by now for suggesting they pimp out their daughters.

    Perhaps we need to work on persuading feminists that arranged marriages are empowering?

    Another small step towards the very desirable goal of white sharia.
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  186. Rosie says:
    @Rosie

    When women attempt those genres they invariably fail. Female science fiction is particularly dire. There’s a lot of nonsense written about how women dominated the crime genre (the so-called Crime Queens) but it’s merely feminist propaganda.
     
    Sure it is.

    BTW Mr. Doom, I see you are a proponent of forced prostitution (arranged marriage). Hence your need to establish that women are only good for sex, and can’t do anything else. It’s prostitute or parasite, as far as you’re concerned. I’m surprised Unz Dads haven’t run you off by now for suggesting they pimp out their daughters.

    Perhaps we need to work on persuading feminists that arranged marriages are empowering?

    Another small step towards the very desirable goal of white sharia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hyperbole does not help in these situations and likely hurts one’s credibility.

    How exactly is an arranged marriage like prostitution?

    My parents’ generation were actually in arranged marriages; families knew each other (sometimes they were family friends) and did the task of suggesting the husband/wife to their daughter/son.

    Thankfully, I know of none in the previous generation (among the people I know) that were forced - all of them were simply the families doing matchmaking and the prospective bride and groom agreeing to it. And sometimes some auntie (or group of aunties) was involved that were known in the community to be successful matchmakers.

    It’s not as dramatic as people think.

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  187. Talha says:
    @Rosie
    BTW Mr. Doom, I see you are a proponent of forced prostitution (arranged marriage). Hence your need to establish that women are only good for sex, and can't do anything else. It's prostitute or parasite, as far as you're concerned. I'm surprised Unz Dads haven't run you off by now for suggesting they pimp out their daughters.

    Perhaps we need to work on persuading feminists that arranged marriages are empowering?

    Another small step towards the very desirable goal of white sharia.
     

    Hyperbole does not help in these situations and likely hurts one’s credibility.

    How exactly is an arranged marriage like prostitution?

    My parents’ generation were actually in arranged marriages; families knew each other (sometimes they were family friends) and did the task of suggesting the husband/wife to their daughter/son.

    Thankfully, I know of none in the previous generation (among the people I know) that were forced – all of them were simply the families doing matchmaking and the prospective bride and groom agreeing to it. And sometimes some auntie (or group of aunties) was involved that were known in the community to be successful matchmakers.

    It’s not as dramatic as people think.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosie

    Hyperbole does not help in these situations and likely hurts one’s credibility.
     
    Talha, my good man, you underestimate the darkness of this man's heart. If you disagree with my assessment of Dr. Doom, why do you think he feels the need to constantly insult and belittle women?

    How exactly is an arranged marriage like prostitution?
     
    When you agree to exchange sexual services for material support, you're a prostitute. When you are forced into this arrangement, you have been forced into prostitution.

    Thankfully, I know of none in the previous generation (among the people I know) that were forced – all of them were simply the families doing matchmaking and the prospective bride and groom agreeing to it. And sometimes some auntie (or group of aunties) was involved that were known in the community to be successful matchmakers.
     
    That's not really arranged marriage. It's more like proactive matchmaking, and totally unobjectionable.
    , @songbird
    It's sort of strange to consider, but I think arranged marriages were pretty common in the West, not that long ago. You can kind of see in genealogy, even if you don't know the direct story. Sometimes you will see two marriages 15 years or more apart that seem to connect two places and two surnames in a nonrandom way. Sometimes an uncle marries a women with a certain name and then his niece marries a groom with that name - not directly the same family, but obviously related in some way.

    It can be a bit frustrating not to know more about it, when your dealing with records that don't go back very far, but I'd guess at least 4 of my G grandparents had arranged marriages, possibly more.

    In the context of the time, I think it was sensible. People had a greater mortality back then and having kin networks was pretty important. To give one example, two sisters marry two brothers, and you know what? If one couple dies, their children still have a home, where they share blood with both their uncle and aunt - that's pretty neat.
    , @dfordoom

    How exactly is an arranged marriage like prostitution?
     
    It's pretty much the opposite, I would have thought.

    The modern western approach, the meat market approach, the approach that half a century of feminism has led us to, encourages young women to behave like sluts and whores. I think that's rather tragic.

    The idea of arranged marriages is to find suitable spouses and to maximise the chances of happy successful marriages. The idea is to avoid having women effectively selling themselves.

    You're making the mistake of assuming that anyone who disagrees with feminism must be motivated by misogyny. In actual fact most people who disagree with feminism do so because feminism is misogynistic. Anyone who actually likes and respects women can only be appalled at what the woman-hating feminists have done to women.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  188. AaronB says:
    @Hyperborean
    While you are able to make more nuanced and developed statements at times, at the end of the day you always return to this facile trope of Western Materialism Eastern Spirituality.

    Everything you say is merely meant to reinforce this idea, regardless of whether what you are saying is true or not. Your statements have no independent value.

    You are right. What I need to do is recall the West to the spiritual traditions within its own past.

    I forgot that I had resolved to do just that, and reverted to my old patterns.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  189. AaronB says:
    @Bardon Kaldian
    It is enough to say that Greeks "invented" man as a social individual & that no other high civilization came with this truly revolutionary ideal. Man is individual, both rational & irrational. Individualism, freedom, democracy.... this is what truly modern world is about.

    And it hadn't come (nor could have come) from any other high civilization, let alone anything else...

    Agreed.

    And whether one thinks this is a good thing depends on ones assessment of individualism and the modern world.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  190. Rosie says:
    @Talha
    Hyperbole does not help in these situations and likely hurts one’s credibility.

    How exactly is an arranged marriage like prostitution?

    My parents’ generation were actually in arranged marriages; families knew each other (sometimes they were family friends) and did the task of suggesting the husband/wife to their daughter/son.

    Thankfully, I know of none in the previous generation (among the people I know) that were forced - all of them were simply the families doing matchmaking and the prospective bride and groom agreeing to it. And sometimes some auntie (or group of aunties) was involved that were known in the community to be successful matchmakers.

    It’s not as dramatic as people think.

    Peace.

    Hyperbole does not help in these situations and likely hurts one’s credibility.

    Talha, my good man, you underestimate the darkness of this man’s heart. If you disagree with my assessment of Dr. Doom, why do you think he feels the need to constantly insult and belittle women?

    How exactly is an arranged marriage like prostitution?

    When you agree to exchange sexual services for material support, you’re a prostitute. When you are forced into this arrangement, you have been forced into prostitution.

    Thankfully, I know of none in the previous generation (among the people I know) that were forced – all of them were simply the families doing matchmaking and the prospective bride and groom agreeing to it. And sometimes some auntie (or group of aunties) was involved that were known in the community to be successful matchmakers.

    That’s not really arranged marriage. It’s more like proactive matchmaking, and totally unobjectionable.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosie
    Talha, I would also ask you to consider the sneering contempt and hostility of his approach to women. He calls for subterfuge and manipulation (make them think it's their idea), rather than reasoning and negotiation. I utterly reject this.

    Men and women need to be forthright about our wants and needs, not play games like children. That is the only way to have healthy relationships, whether in the home or in society at large.

    , @Talha
    Hi Rosie, I actually wasn’t defending dfordoom. He’s a big boy, he can defend himself. I was merely making a case about “arranged marriage”, which it seems, the term itself is seen differently by people. The matchmaking I described has always been referred to as an arranged marriage. So maybe dfordoom was referring to this matchmaking model. He can elaborate.

    As far as marriage is concerned; from a strictly legal perspective, it really has been a woman’s exchange of sexual services for a man providing room and board.

    This legal arrangement forms the skeleton of the institution, and it can last purely on this basis as a kind of business transaction; what’s love got to do with it?

    Kidding aside though, thankfully, the vast majority of marriages around the world are built on love, respect and mutual goals on top of that legal foundation.

    Peace.

    Note: Interesting read on this subject:
    “A woman who wants to divorce her husband on the grounds she is unhappy has lost her Supreme Court appeal.
    Tini Owens, 68, from Worcestershire, wanted the court to grant her a divorce from her husband of 40 years Hugh, who is refusing the split.”
    https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-england-hereford-worcester-44949856
    , @dfordoom

    When you agree to exchange sexual services for material support, you’re a prostitute.
     
    Now I have no idea what you're trying to argue. Are you saying that marriage is the same as prostitution? So how would an arranged marriage be any different in that respect from any other marriage?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  191. Rosie says:
    @Rosie

    Hyperbole does not help in these situations and likely hurts one’s credibility.
     
    Talha, my good man, you underestimate the darkness of this man's heart. If you disagree with my assessment of Dr. Doom, why do you think he feels the need to constantly insult and belittle women?

    How exactly is an arranged marriage like prostitution?
     
    When you agree to exchange sexual services for material support, you're a prostitute. When you are forced into this arrangement, you have been forced into prostitution.

    Thankfully, I know of none in the previous generation (among the people I know) that were forced – all of them were simply the families doing matchmaking and the prospective bride and groom agreeing to it. And sometimes some auntie (or group of aunties) was involved that were known in the community to be successful matchmakers.
     
    That's not really arranged marriage. It's more like proactive matchmaking, and totally unobjectionable.

    Talha, I would also ask you to consider the sneering contempt and hostility of his approach to women. He calls for subterfuge and manipulation (make them think it’s their idea), rather than reasoning and negotiation. I utterly reject this.

    Men and women need to be forthright about our wants and needs, not play games like children. That is the only way to have healthy relationships, whether in the home or in society at large.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jason Liu
    Being forthright is antithetical to a woman's strategies in the sexual marketplace and will never be practiced on a large scale.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  192. songbird says:
    @Talha
    Hyperbole does not help in these situations and likely hurts one’s credibility.

    How exactly is an arranged marriage like prostitution?

    My parents’ generation were actually in arranged marriages; families knew each other (sometimes they were family friends) and did the task of suggesting the husband/wife to their daughter/son.

    Thankfully, I know of none in the previous generation (among the people I know) that were forced - all of them were simply the families doing matchmaking and the prospective bride and groom agreeing to it. And sometimes some auntie (or group of aunties) was involved that were known in the community to be successful matchmakers.

    It’s not as dramatic as people think.

    Peace.

    It’s sort of strange to consider, but I think arranged marriages were pretty common in the West, not that long ago. You can kind of see in genealogy, even if you don’t know the direct story. Sometimes you will see two marriages 15 years or more apart that seem to connect two places and two surnames in a nonrandom way. Sometimes an uncle marries a women with a certain name and then his niece marries a groom with that name – not directly the same family, but obviously related in some way.

    It can be a bit frustrating not to know more about it, when your dealing with records that don’t go back very far, but I’d guess at least 4 of my G grandparents had arranged marriages, possibly more.

    In the context of the time, I think it was sensible. People had a greater mortality back then and having kin networks was pretty important. To give one example, two sisters marry two brothers, and you know what? If one couple dies, their children still have a home, where they share blood with both their uncle and aunt – that’s pretty neat.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha

    In the context of the time, I think it was sensible. People had a greater mortality back then and having kin networks was pretty important.
     
    This is key - if you want to revive certain aspects of society, then you may have to also consider reviving certain institutions.

    In my own history, my parents (via aunts and uncles) tried to arrange a partner for me, but it didn't work out since, though the girl was attractive, she was not what I was looking for as far as religious commitment. A friend of mine tried to arrange a match for me, his family hosting both me and the girl for meeting in their living room and discussing getting married. She was very attractive and religiously practicing, but she wasn't very interested in spirituality too much, she was more into legalities and politics, so that didn't work out. In another prospect, I approached a friend about his sister. Though he was very happy about the prospect, she wasn't - so that went nowhere fairly quickly.

    In all the above case, the key was everything was about marriage at the outset, there was no messing around and no other expectation, so everyone involved was dead serious about the situation. It helped, because emotions didn't get involved too early and people tried not to waste everyone's time.

    I think I mentioned before that I have a couple of girls in mind (daughters of a brother I knew at UCLA) for my two boys (basically the arrangement you mentioned) and keep my eyes open for good families that are raising good daughters. It's really weird, but I had not thought much about it before, but this concern subconsciously surfaced just recently as I'm growing older.

    Peace.
    , @dfordoom

    It’s sort of strange to consider, but I think arranged marriages were pretty common in the West, not that long ago.
     
    In most sane societies it has been recognised that young people (both male and female) are unbelievably stupid and impulsive and irresponsible. If left entirely to their own devices to make their own decisions they will almost invariably manage to make the wrong decisions. In the case of marriage they will tend to make decisions based on emotion and/or lust.

    Parents are assumed to have more sense, being old enough to have learnt to exercise judgment, so it's logical that parents should have the right, and the responsibility, to push their children into making more sensible decisions that they would otherwise make. This seems to be understood in Islamic societies. Because the West has gone collectively insane it is no longer understood in western society.

    Compared to western society Islam is simply a bit more realistic about human nature.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  193. Talha says:
    @Rosie

    Hyperbole does not help in these situations and likely hurts one’s credibility.
     
    Talha, my good man, you underestimate the darkness of this man's heart. If you disagree with my assessment of Dr. Doom, why do you think he feels the need to constantly insult and belittle women?

    How exactly is an arranged marriage like prostitution?
     
    When you agree to exchange sexual services for material support, you're a prostitute. When you are forced into this arrangement, you have been forced into prostitution.

    Thankfully, I know of none in the previous generation (among the people I know) that were forced – all of them were simply the families doing matchmaking and the prospective bride and groom agreeing to it. And sometimes some auntie (or group of aunties) was involved that were known in the community to be successful matchmakers.
     
    That's not really arranged marriage. It's more like proactive matchmaking, and totally unobjectionable.

    Hi Rosie, I actually wasn’t defending dfordoom. He’s a big boy, he can defend himself. I was merely making a case about “arranged marriage”, which it seems, the term itself is seen differently by people. The matchmaking I described has always been referred to as an arranged marriage. So maybe dfordoom was referring to this matchmaking model. He can elaborate.

    As far as marriage is concerned; from a strictly legal perspective, it really has been a woman’s exchange of sexual services for a man providing room and board.

    This legal arrangement forms the skeleton of the institution, and it can last purely on this basis as a kind of business transaction; what’s love got to do with it?

    Kidding aside though, thankfully, the vast majority of marriages around the world are built on love, respect and mutual goals on top of that legal foundation.

    Peace.

    Note: Interesting read on this subject:
    “A woman who wants to divorce her husband on the grounds she is unhappy has lost her Supreme Court appeal.
    Tini Owens, 68, from Worcestershire, wanted the court to grant her a divorce from her husband of 40 years Hugh, who is refusing the split.”

    https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-england-hereford-worcester-44949856

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosie

    “A woman who wants to divorce her husband on the grounds she is unhappy has lost her Supreme Court appeal.
     
    Good.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  194. Talha says:
    @songbird
    It's sort of strange to consider, but I think arranged marriages were pretty common in the West, not that long ago. You can kind of see in genealogy, even if you don't know the direct story. Sometimes you will see two marriages 15 years or more apart that seem to connect two places and two surnames in a nonrandom way. Sometimes an uncle marries a women with a certain name and then his niece marries a groom with that name - not directly the same family, but obviously related in some way.

    It can be a bit frustrating not to know more about it, when your dealing with records that don't go back very far, but I'd guess at least 4 of my G grandparents had arranged marriages, possibly more.

    In the context of the time, I think it was sensible. People had a greater mortality back then and having kin networks was pretty important. To give one example, two sisters marry two brothers, and you know what? If one couple dies, their children still have a home, where they share blood with both their uncle and aunt - that's pretty neat.

    In the context of the time, I think it was sensible. People had a greater mortality back then and having kin networks was pretty important.

    This is key – if you want to revive certain aspects of society, then you may have to also consider reviving certain institutions.

    In my own history, my parents (via aunts and uncles) tried to arrange a partner for me, but it didn’t work out since, though the girl was attractive, she was not what I was looking for as far as religious commitment. A friend of mine tried to arrange a match for me, his family hosting both me and the girl for meeting in their living room and discussing getting married. She was very attractive and religiously practicing, but she wasn’t very interested in spirituality too much, she was more into legalities and politics, so that didn’t work out. In another prospect, I approached a friend about his sister. Though he was very happy about the prospect, she wasn’t – so that went nowhere fairly quickly.

    In all the above case, the key was everything was about marriage at the outset, there was no messing around and no other expectation, so everyone involved was dead serious about the situation. It helped, because emotions didn’t get involved too early and people tried not to waste everyone’s time.

    I think I mentioned before that I have a couple of girls in mind (daughters of a brother I knew at UCLA) for my two boys (basically the arrangement you mentioned) and keep my eyes open for good families that are raising good daughters. It’s really weird, but I had not thought much about it before, but this concern subconsciously surfaced just recently as I’m growing older.

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  195. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Talha
    Hyperbole does not help in these situations and likely hurts one’s credibility.

    How exactly is an arranged marriage like prostitution?

    My parents’ generation were actually in arranged marriages; families knew each other (sometimes they were family friends) and did the task of suggesting the husband/wife to their daughter/son.

    Thankfully, I know of none in the previous generation (among the people I know) that were forced - all of them were simply the families doing matchmaking and the prospective bride and groom agreeing to it. And sometimes some auntie (or group of aunties) was involved that were known in the community to be successful matchmakers.

    It’s not as dramatic as people think.

    Peace.

    How exactly is an arranged marriage like prostitution?

    It’s pretty much the opposite, I would have thought.

    The modern western approach, the meat market approach, the approach that half a century of feminism has led us to, encourages young women to behave like sluts and whores. I think that’s rather tragic.

    The idea of arranged marriages is to find suitable spouses and to maximise the chances of happy successful marriages. The idea is to avoid having women effectively selling themselves.

    You’re making the mistake of assuming that anyone who disagrees with feminism must be motivated by misogyny. In actual fact most people who disagree with feminism do so because feminism is misogynistic. Anyone who actually likes and respects women can only be appalled at what the woman-hating feminists have done to women.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha

    The idea of arranged marriages is to find suitable spouses and to maximise the chances of happy successful marriages.
     
    Agreed.

    You’re making the mistake of assuming that anyone who disagrees with feminism must be motivated by misogyny.
     
    Agreed.

    In most sane societies it has been recognised that young people (both male and female) are unbelievably stupid and impulsive and irresponsible. If left entirely to their own devices to make their own decisions they will almost invariably manage to make the wrong decisions.
     
    Agreed.

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  196. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Rosie

    Hyperbole does not help in these situations and likely hurts one’s credibility.
     
    Talha, my good man, you underestimate the darkness of this man's heart. If you disagree with my assessment of Dr. Doom, why do you think he feels the need to constantly insult and belittle women?

    How exactly is an arranged marriage like prostitution?
     
    When you agree to exchange sexual services for material support, you're a prostitute. When you are forced into this arrangement, you have been forced into prostitution.

    Thankfully, I know of none in the previous generation (among the people I know) that were forced – all of them were simply the families doing matchmaking and the prospective bride and groom agreeing to it. And sometimes some auntie (or group of aunties) was involved that were known in the community to be successful matchmakers.
     
    That's not really arranged marriage. It's more like proactive matchmaking, and totally unobjectionable.

    When you agree to exchange sexual services for material support, you’re a prostitute.

    Now I have no idea what you’re trying to argue. Are you saying that marriage is the same as prostitution? So how would an arranged marriage be any different in that respect from any other marriage?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    Friedan-era feminism classically equates marriage with prostitution(or worse, sexual slavery and domestic labor). Its nothing new, and actually rather mild compared to some, who equated all genital male-to-female sex as rape.

    Its pretty entertaining in its own way, but ultimately it is indeed a destructive cult.
    , @Rosie

    Now I have no idea what you’re trying to argue. Are you saying that marriage is the same as prostitution? So how would an arranged marriage be any different in that respect from any other marriage?
     
    Marriage based on mutual affection is not prostitution. It is a partnership. It is the transactional (and non-companionate) nature of the arrangement that makes it prostitution. As I said, when you have sex with a man for consideration, in cash or in kind, the essence of the arrangement is transactional.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  197. dfordoom says: • Website
    @songbird
    It's sort of strange to consider, but I think arranged marriages were pretty common in the West, not that long ago. You can kind of see in genealogy, even if you don't know the direct story. Sometimes you will see two marriages 15 years or more apart that seem to connect two places and two surnames in a nonrandom way. Sometimes an uncle marries a women with a certain name and then his niece marries a groom with that name - not directly the same family, but obviously related in some way.

    It can be a bit frustrating not to know more about it, when your dealing with records that don't go back very far, but I'd guess at least 4 of my G grandparents had arranged marriages, possibly more.

    In the context of the time, I think it was sensible. People had a greater mortality back then and having kin networks was pretty important. To give one example, two sisters marry two brothers, and you know what? If one couple dies, their children still have a home, where they share blood with both their uncle and aunt - that's pretty neat.

    It’s sort of strange to consider, but I think arranged marriages were pretty common in the West, not that long ago.

    In most sane societies it has been recognised that young people (both male and female) are unbelievably stupid and impulsive and irresponsible. If left entirely to their own devices to make their own decisions they will almost invariably manage to make the wrong decisions. In the case of marriage they will tend to make decisions based on emotion and/or lust.

    Parents are assumed to have more sense, being old enough to have learnt to exercise judgment, so it’s logical that parents should have the right, and the responsibility, to push their children into making more sensible decisions that they would otherwise make. This seems to be understood in Islamic societies. Because the West has gone collectively insane it is no longer understood in western society.

    Compared to western society Islam is simply a bit more realistic about human nature.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosie

    Compared to western society Islam is simply a bit more realistic about human nature.
     
    Thank you Dr. Doom of Arabia.

    If left entirely to their own devices to make their own decisions they will almost invariably manage to make the wrong decisions. In the case of marriage they will tend to make decisions based on emotion and/or lust.
     
    Amish parents take a near-totally hands-off approach, and the youth find partners and stay married for life. If there is a successful indigenous model of marriage based on free choice, why do you feel compelled to glorify alien traditions?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  198. Jason Liu says:
    @Rosie
    Talha, I would also ask you to consider the sneering contempt and hostility of his approach to women. He calls for subterfuge and manipulation (make them think it's their idea), rather than reasoning and negotiation. I utterly reject this.

    Men and women need to be forthright about our wants and needs, not play games like children. That is the only way to have healthy relationships, whether in the home or in society at large.

    Being forthright is antithetical to a woman’s strategies in the sexual marketplace and will never be practiced on a large scale.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosie

    Being forthright is antithetical to a woman’s strategies in the sexual marketplace and will never be practiced on a large scale.
     
    So you say. Where is your evidence?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  199. Logan says:
    @notanon

    I don’t know where this idea that the West isn’t “conformist” comes from.
     
    right - it's more a question of where their conformism is decided - non-WEIRD populations look locally, clan, familial, traditional while WEIRD populations (cos they cooperate on a larger scale) look for a larger scale and more "universal" code decided by a dominant moral authority (which is currently and to our great detriment TV, particularly US TV).

    I agree.

    The WEIRDOs are forming their own worldwide tribe, while dislocating their shoulders patting themselves on the back for their rejection of tribalism.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  200. @Bardon Kaldian
    It is enough to say that Greeks "invented" man as a social individual & that no other high civilization came with this truly revolutionary ideal. Man is individual, both rational & irrational. Individualism, freedom, democracy.... this is what truly modern world is about.

    And it hadn't come (nor could have come) from any other high civilization, let alone anything else...

    The only freedom worth experiencing is the freedom of submitting to a higher purpose and transcending one’s base form.

    Otherwise, like animals, humans’ freedom will merely be their chains.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    You mean that obesity isn't the highest goal in life?!!!
    , @Bardon Kaldian
    “Man is the measure of all things”

    “Concerning the gods I cannot know either that they exist or that they do not exist, or what form they might have, for there is much to prevent one's knowing: the obscurity of the subject and the shortness of man's life.”

    Protagoras (/proʊˈtæɡərəs/; Greek: Πρωταγόρας; c. 490 – c. 420 BC)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  201. @dfordoom

    When you agree to exchange sexual services for material support, you’re a prostitute.
     
    Now I have no idea what you're trying to argue. Are you saying that marriage is the same as prostitution? So how would an arranged marriage be any different in that respect from any other marriage?

    Friedan-era feminism classically equates marriage with prostitution(or worse, sexual slavery and domestic labor). Its nothing new, and actually rather mild compared to some, who equated all genital male-to-female sex as rape.

    Its pretty entertaining in its own way, but ultimately it is indeed a destructive cult.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    Marx and Engels were before Friedan. You can find marriage=prostitution in Communist Manifesto.
    , @Rosie

    Friedan-era feminism classically equates marriage with prostitution(or worse, sexual slavery and domestic labor). Its nothing new, and actually rather mild compared to some, who equated all genital male-to-female sex as rape.
     
    For what it's worth, I didn't equate marriage with prostitution, only forced marriage. As another commenter pointed out, sexual and domestic slavery might actually be a better analogy, though it's not clear that there is any meaningful difference between forced prostitution and domestic labor on the one hand and forced prostitution on the other.

    My position is more like that of the Catholic Church:

    1627 The consent consists in a "human act by which the partners mutually give themselves to each other": "I take you to be my wife" - "I take you to be my husband."[126] This consent that binds the spouses to each other finds its fulfillment in the two "becoming one flesh."[127]

    1628 The consent must be an act of the will of each of the contracting parties, free of coercion or grave external fear.[128] No human power can substitute for this consent.[129] If this freedom is lacking the marriage is invalid.

    If I'm not mistaken, the Church considers any forced null and void, but potentially valid if genuine marital affection develops between the parties. Again, it is the companionate relationship that brings the relationship into conformity with God's plan for marriage.
    , @Dmitry
    Problem of "feminism" is not whatever beliefs are there (not something even clear), but the idea that women as category is some particularly interesting subject, that will provide us anything insightful.

    It's problem of taking some uninteresting category (like gender), and then reifying into something mystical. It's similar to Nazism and Marxism, which operate on race and class.

    From this, the beliefs are often similar.

    First you identify with the category.

    Second, that there is a conspiracy theory, which has worked throughout history against the category (women), and is identifiable enemy (men). (As in Nazism - enemy are Jews, Slavs etc, and in Marxism - bourgeoisie)

    Third - that is some special "sisterhood" which united all members of this category (women), and that only members of the category can understand each other. (This very powerful in political movements as it promises to end people's loneliness - one of main operators in Nazism and Marxism).

    Finally - that some mystical and meaning of life can be created from endless obsession category "women" (this is the same structure as Marxism and Nazism, focusing on obsession in class and race categories, and assignment of magical properties to proletariat, or to German race - respectively).


    -


    Reality about feminism is that women (as category) are not very interesting, and if you try to reduce history or literature to this topic, you will end up writing very boring works of history and literary criticism (as happens).

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  202. @Hyperborean
    The only freedom worth experiencing is the freedom of submitting to a higher purpose and transcending one's base form.

    Otherwise, like animals, humans' freedom will merely be their chains.

    You mean that obesity isn’t the highest goal in life?!!!

    Read More
    • LOL: Talha
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  203. Talha says:
    @dfordoom

    How exactly is an arranged marriage like prostitution?
     
    It's pretty much the opposite, I would have thought.

    The modern western approach, the meat market approach, the approach that half a century of feminism has led us to, encourages young women to behave like sluts and whores. I think that's rather tragic.

    The idea of arranged marriages is to find suitable spouses and to maximise the chances of happy successful marriages. The idea is to avoid having women effectively selling themselves.

    You're making the mistake of assuming that anyone who disagrees with feminism must be motivated by misogyny. In actual fact most people who disagree with feminism do so because feminism is misogynistic. Anyone who actually likes and respects women can only be appalled at what the woman-hating feminists have done to women.

    The idea of arranged marriages is to find suitable spouses and to maximise the chances of happy successful marriages.

    Agreed.

    You’re making the mistake of assuming that anyone who disagrees with feminism must be motivated by misogyny.

    Agreed.

    In most sane societies it has been recognised that young people (both male and female) are unbelievably stupid and impulsive and irresponsible. If left entirely to their own devices to make their own decisions they will almost invariably manage to make the wrong decisions.

    Agreed.

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  204. @dfordoom

    Sure it is. If Doc EE Smith wasn’t SF, you might as well throw over the whole genre,

     

    Smith did not write soap operas in space. That's not the stuff Smith wrote. His work and that of his contemporaries was labelled space opera simply because it was a convenient term of abuse, just as westerns were labeled as horse operas.

    What Thorfinnson and Vox Day are talking about is the science fiction written by women that is all about relationships.

    Someone really should make an entirely sung science fiction piece, a proper space opera. Repo: Genetic Opera was hilarious and awesome, but more cyberpunk than sci-fi in its construction.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  205. Dmitry says:
    @Yevardian
    I don't think that's true. Measures of quality stay constant throughout time, ie a bad or good film or book today will have had the same intrinsic worth as when it was created.
    On Austen, I have only read Emma, which I recall enjoying, which I must have as I read it in 2 consecutive days. Obviously if one reads novels for 'social criticism', big ideas, political analogies or other such anti-artistic BS they won't find much in Austen, but she's a pleasant writer.
    I remember having the impression that her writing style would translate very badly from English to any other language.

    Female sci-fi? I liked K.A. Applegate's books when I was very young, particularly the Remnants series, though admittedly 'science' component was very low. Perhaps irrelevant, since I find 'hard' sci-fi a tremendous bore anyway (Asimov, 40K or the Strugatsky's are hardly 'hard' scifi). In a very real sense its unfair to expect any woman to write anything on the level of Lermontov or Goethe anyway.

    On Austen, I have only read Emma, which I recall enjoying, which I must have as I read it in 2 consecutive days. Obviously if

    The point is, if you compare books of author Austen born in 1775, and published in 1810s – they will be far more similar to novels of authors book in 1770s, and published in 1810s, than to any other writers (especially later writers, as the novel developed very rapidly over the century).

    Without understanding of history of the art form, people can be very confused. For example, of course she will not likely have “political analogues and social criticism” – as this was only feature of the novel in later decades in the century.

    Also people who think art can be removed from its era and development history – it’s not true.

    Unless you will ignore why Haydn and Mozart sound so similar, and both completely different to Palestrina.

    Or why films of 1920s are so similar to each other, and so different to those of 1990s.

    Why paintings of 1890s are far more similar to each other (across different artists), than to those of 1790s?

    In some eras, development of the art form has greater difference, than individuality of the artist. But only across eras when an art form is developing rapidly. Bebop jazz of 1950s, is very different to swing jazz of 1930s. But is there a difference between jazz of 1990s and jazz 2000s? (no – as art form is not in process of rapid development anymore).

    Question whether something good in 1810, is always good throughout history, is a different topic. Probably yes, but often what people without sense of context, perceive as good or bad in the work, might be more a product of its era, than something unusual in artist themselves.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh

    For example, of course she will not likely have “political analogues and social criticism” – as this was only feature of the novel in later decades in the century.
     
    Gulliver's Travels was published in 1726.

    It began upon the following Occasion. It is allowed on all Hands, that the primitive
    way of breaking Eggs, before we eat them, was upon the larger End: But his
    present Majesty's Grand-father, while he was a Boy, going to eat an Egg, and
    breaking it according to the ancient Practice, happened to cut one of his Fingers.
    Whereupon the Emperor his Father published an Edict, commanding all his
    Subjects, upon great Penaltys, to break the smaller End of their Eggs.
    The People so highly resented this Law, that our Histories tell us there have been
    six Rebellions raised on that account; wherein one Emperor lost his Life, and
    another his Crown. These civil Commotions were constantly fomented by the
    Monarchs of Blefuscu; and when they were quelled, the Exiles always fled for
    Refuge to that Empire. It is computed, that eleven thousand Persons have, at
    several times, suffered Death, rather than submit to break their Eggs at the smaller
    End.

    Many hundred large Volumes have been published upon this Controversy: But the
    books of the Big-Endians have been long forbidden, and the whole Party rendered
    incapable by Law of holding Employments.
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  206. @Dmitry

    On Austen, I have only read Emma, which I recall enjoying, which I must have as I read it in 2 consecutive days. Obviously if
     
    The point is, if you compare books of author Austen born in 1775, and published in 1810s - they will be far more similar to novels of authors book in 1770s, and published in 1810s, than to any other writers (especially later writers, as the novel developed very rapidly over the century).

    Without understanding of history of the art form, people can be very confused. For example, of course she will not likely have "political analogues and social criticism" - as this was only feature of the novel in later decades in the century.

    Also people who think art can be removed from its era and development history - it's not true.

    Unless you will ignore why Haydn and Mozart sound so similar, and both completely different to Palestrina.

    Or why films of 1920s are so similar to each other, and so different to those of 1990s.

    Why paintings of 1890s are far more similar to each other (across different artists), than to those of 1790s?

    In some eras, development of the art form has greater difference, than individuality of the artist. But only across eras when an art form is developing rapidly. Bebop jazz of 1950s, is very different to swing jazz of 1930s. But is there a difference between jazz of 1990s and jazz 2000s? (no - as art form is not in process of rapid development anymore).

    Question whether something good in 1810, is always good throughout history, is a different topic. Probably yes, but often what people without sense of context, perceive as good or bad in the work, might be more a product of its era, than something unusual in artist themselves.

    For example, of course she will not likely have “political analogues and social criticism” – as this was only feature of the novel in later decades in the century.

    Gulliver’s Travels was published in 1726.

    It began upon the following Occasion. It is allowed on all Hands, that the primitive
    way of breaking Eggs, before we eat them, was upon the larger End: But his
    present Majesty’s Grand-father, while he was a Boy, going to eat an Egg, and
    breaking it according to the ancient Practice, happened to cut one of his Fingers.
    Whereupon the Emperor his Father published an Edict, commanding all his
    Subjects, upon great Penaltys, to break the smaller End of their Eggs.
    The People so highly resented this Law, that our Histories tell us there have been
    six Rebellions raised on that account; wherein one Emperor lost his Life, and
    another his Crown. These civil Commotions were constantly fomented by the
    Monarchs of Blefuscu; and when they were quelled, the Exiles always fled for
    Refuge to that Empire. It is computed, that eleven thousand Persons have, at
    several times, suffered Death, rather than submit to break their Eggs at the smaller
    End.

    Many hundred large Volumes have been published upon this Controversy: But the
    books of the Big-Endians have been long forbidden, and the whole Party rendered
    incapable by Law of holding Employments.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry
    It's not a novel though, but a satirical text.

    If you go to book shop and buy this satire from 1726, and with expectations of losing yourself in a novel - expecting to be thrown in detailed descriptive world, with endless social commentary as in Tolstoy, mixed with cinematic scenes and pages of discussion of the emotional situation of different characters - you would be very disappointed.

    It sounds kind of shocking for some people - but expectations of what kinds of things to find in a famous work of literature, will be most accurately managed by year of publication. Not much less than when you buy a DVD of an old film.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  207. Dmitry says:
    @dfordoom

    Likewise most women aren’t interested in adventure novels, science fiction, historical fiction, etc.
     
    When women attempt those genres they invariably fail. Female science fiction is particularly dire. There's a lot of nonsense written about how women dominated the crime genre (the so-called Crime Queens) but it's merely feminist propaganda. Apart from Christie the women writers of detective fiction of the golden age were third-rate (Dorothy L.Sayers, Ngaio Marsh, etc).

    There's been a handful of first-rate women novelists - Austen, Emily Brontë, Charlotte Brontë. No worthwhile women poets since Sappho. No worthwhile women dramatists at all.

    In the arts generally the contribution of women has been minuscule. Women are amazingly good at dissecting relationships which is handy if you want to be a novelist but no help if you want to be a painter, architect, composer, poet, etc.

    Camille Paglia on the other hand most certainly does have a first-rate mind.

    I was looking at 1810s novels to compare with Austen – one is Frankenstein, which is creation of a woman author Mary Shelley. Although there is controversy in whether her husband (also a famous writer) has contributed to the work or not.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  208. Dmitry says:
    @Daniel Chieh

    For example, of course she will not likely have “political analogues and social criticism” – as this was only feature of the novel in later decades in the century.
     
    Gulliver's Travels was published in 1726.

    It began upon the following Occasion. It is allowed on all Hands, that the primitive
    way of breaking Eggs, before we eat them, was upon the larger End: But his
    present Majesty's Grand-father, while he was a Boy, going to eat an Egg, and
    breaking it according to the ancient Practice, happened to cut one of his Fingers.
    Whereupon the Emperor his Father published an Edict, commanding all his
    Subjects, upon great Penaltys, to break the smaller End of their Eggs.
    The People so highly resented this Law, that our Histories tell us there have been
    six Rebellions raised on that account; wherein one Emperor lost his Life, and
    another his Crown. These civil Commotions were constantly fomented by the
    Monarchs of Blefuscu; and when they were quelled, the Exiles always fled for
    Refuge to that Empire. It is computed, that eleven thousand Persons have, at
    several times, suffered Death, rather than submit to break their Eggs at the smaller
    End.

    Many hundred large Volumes have been published upon this Controversy: But the
    books of the Big-Endians have been long forbidden, and the whole Party rendered
    incapable by Law of holding Employments.
     

    It’s not a novel though, but a satirical text.

    If you go to book shop and buy this satire from 1726, and with expectations of losing yourself in a novel – expecting to be thrown in detailed descriptive world, with endless social commentary as in Tolstoy, mixed with cinematic scenes and pages of discussion of the emotional situation of different characters – you would be very disappointed.

    It sounds kind of shocking for some people – but expectations of what kinds of things to find in a famous work of literature, will be most accurately managed by year of publication. Not much less than when you buy a DVD of an old film.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    I think that's drawing too close of a definition on it; the classical Robinson Crusoe is a novel, but it is also is very moralizing in many parts. Without understanding any of the satire, the work can still be appreciated as a 'stranger in a strange land" narrative - and some reviewers at the time treated it as such, with its entire faux autobiographical style.

    Tolstoy and Dostoevsky is really rather uniquely Russian more than anything else; its pacing is very different from most English works. Relatively few events, for example, really happens in Crime and Punishment, but that's not the important part; its the exploration of a soul tormented by guilt which matters.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  209. @Hyperborean
    The only freedom worth experiencing is the freedom of submitting to a higher purpose and transcending one's base form.

    Otherwise, like animals, humans' freedom will merely be their chains.

    “Man is the measure of all things”

    “Concerning the gods I cannot know either that they exist or that they do not exist, or what form they might have, for there is much to prevent one’s knowing: the obscurity of the subject and the shortness of man’s life.”

    Protagoras (/proʊˈtæɡərəs/; Greek: Πρωταγόρας; c. 490 – c. 420 BC)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry
    First Protagoras quote is really a statement of relativism (not individualism) though, and very strongly rejected by Socrates in the Plato's dialogue which is called his name.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  210. utu says:
    @Daniel Chieh
    Friedan-era feminism classically equates marriage with prostitution(or worse, sexual slavery and domestic labor). Its nothing new, and actually rather mild compared to some, who equated all genital male-to-female sex as rape.

    Its pretty entertaining in its own way, but ultimately it is indeed a destructive cult.

    Marx and Engels were before Friedan. You can find marriage=prostitution in Communist Manifesto.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    Well, it is obviously private ownership of services unmanaged by the state; such domestic services are also unaccounted for and all potential tyranny that is not the state is of course more horrible than state tyranny. It would be ideal for the state to have all sex be billed, this could be regulated and taxed; this would also greatly increase the recorded GDP in the country.
    , @Rosie

    Marx and Engels were before Friedan. You can find marriage=prostitution in Communist Manifesto.
     
    I find it interesting that men here are so dismissive of my view that marrying for financial support constitutes prostitution. I thought men hated gold-diggers, preferring instead to have a woman choose them for more companionship-related reasons.

    Anyway, the point is this. If women are denied any independent means of support, they are in effect forced into an unwanted marriage (i.e. prostitution). This is the policy that Dr. Doom advocates if I'm not mistaken.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  211. @dfordoom

    Likewise most women aren’t interested in adventure novels, science fiction, historical fiction, etc.
     
    When women attempt those genres they invariably fail. Female science fiction is particularly dire. There's a lot of nonsense written about how women dominated the crime genre (the so-called Crime Queens) but it's merely feminist propaganda. Apart from Christie the women writers of detective fiction of the golden age were third-rate (Dorothy L.Sayers, Ngaio Marsh, etc).

    There's been a handful of first-rate women novelists - Austen, Emily Brontë, Charlotte Brontë. No worthwhile women poets since Sappho. No worthwhile women dramatists at all.

    In the arts generally the contribution of women has been minuscule. Women are amazingly good at dissecting relationships which is handy if you want to be a novelist but no help if you want to be a painter, architect, composer, poet, etc.

    Camille Paglia on the other hand most certainly does have a first-rate mind.

    There are more females among great (or significant) writers, but they are not so well known or popular: Marie de France, Maria Edgeworth, Virginia Woolf, Marguerite Yourcenar, Anna Akhmatova, Emily Dickinson, Flannery O’Connor, Sigrid Undset, Marina Tsvetaeva, Elizabeth Bishop, Willa Cather, Simone de Beauvoir, Ursula Le Guin, …

    Of course, and the incomparable George Eliot:

    I remember how, at Cambridge, I walked with her once in the Fellows’ Garden of Trinity, on an evening of rainy May; and she, stirred somewhat beyond her wont, and taking as her text the three words which have been used so often as the inspiring trumpet-calls of men—the words God, Immortality, Duty—pronounced, with terrible earnestness, how inconceivable was the first, how unbelievable the second, and yet how peremptory and absolute the third. Never perhaps, have sterner accents affirmed the sovereignty of impersonal and unrecompensing Law. I listened, and night fell; her grave, majestic countenance turned toward me like a sibyl’s in the gloom; it was as though she withdrew from my grasp, one by one, the two scrolls of promise, and left me the third scroll only, awful with inevitable fates. And when we stood at length and parted amid that columnar circuit of the forest trees, beneath the last twilight of starless skies, I seemed to be gazing, like Titus at Jerusalem, on vacant seats and empty halls—on a sanctuary with no Presence to hallow it, and heaven left lonely of a God.

    Frederic Myers 1881, on George Eliot’s visit to Cambridge 1873

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    Thank you for that passage.

    That passage would have to figure prominently in any accounting of the gradual squeezing out of joy and vitality from the West.

    No God, no immortality, just some vague, abstract, imprisoning Law.

    That is where Europe had got by the end of the 19th century. The next 100 years of decadence and collapse is just commentary I guess.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  212. @Dmitry
    It's not a novel though, but a satirical text.

    If you go to book shop and buy this satire from 1726, and with expectations of losing yourself in a novel - expecting to be thrown in detailed descriptive world, with endless social commentary as in Tolstoy, mixed with cinematic scenes and pages of discussion of the emotional situation of different characters - you would be very disappointed.

    It sounds kind of shocking for some people - but expectations of what kinds of things to find in a famous work of literature, will be most accurately managed by year of publication. Not much less than when you buy a DVD of an old film.

    I think that’s drawing too close of a definition on it; the classical Robinson Crusoe is a novel, but it is also is very moralizing in many parts. Without understanding any of the satire, the work can still be appreciated as a ‘stranger in a strange land” narrative – and some reviewers at the time treated it as such, with its entire faux autobiographical style.

    Tolstoy and Dostoevsky is really rather uniquely Russian more than anything else; its pacing is very different from most English works. Relatively few events, for example, really happens in Crime and Punishment, but that’s not the important part; its the exploration of a soul tormented by guilt which matters.

    Read More
    • Agree: Rosie
    • Replies: @Dmitry
    Use of unusual pacing is not anything Russian (or in earlier novels), it is simply reflecting literary experiments of second half of 19th century onwards.

    Dostoevsky - one of the first to experiment with slow pacing (first hundred pages of Idiot is one night only). But after a while, this is fashionable around the world, and there are many novels which are slowing down time. In the early 20th century, reaches its limit - with Mrs Dalloway and Ulysses both novels contained completely in one day. Ulysses - 730 page novel about a single day.

    Dostoevsky, who originally was quite pioneering, then seems very normal and conservative by comparison to novels of 1920s like Ulysses.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  213. AaronB says:
    @Bardon Kaldian
    There are more females among great (or significant) writers, but they are not so well known or popular: Marie de France, Maria Edgeworth, Virginia Woolf, Marguerite Yourcenar, Anna Akhmatova, Emily Dickinson, Flannery O'Connor, Sigrid Undset, Marina Tsvetaeva, Elizabeth Bishop, Willa Cather, Simone de Beauvoir, Ursula Le Guin, ...

    Of course, and the incomparable George Eliot:

    I remember how, at Cambridge, I walked with her once in the Fellows’ Garden of Trinity, on an evening of rainy May; and she, stirred somewhat beyond her wont, and taking as her text the three words which have been used so often as the inspiring trumpet-calls of men—the words God, Immortality, Duty—pronounced, with terrible earnestness, how inconceivable was the first, how unbelievable the second, and yet how peremptory and absolute the third. Never perhaps, have sterner accents affirmed the sovereignty of impersonal and unrecompensing Law. I listened, and night fell; her grave, majestic countenance turned toward me like a sibyl’s in the gloom; it was as though she withdrew from my grasp, one by one, the two scrolls of promise, and left me the third scroll only, awful with inevitable fates. And when we stood at length and parted amid that columnar circuit of the forest trees, beneath the last twilight of starless skies, I seemed to be gazing, like Titus at Jerusalem, on vacant seats and empty halls—on a sanctuary with no Presence to hallow it, and heaven left lonely of a God.

    Frederic Myers 1881, on George Eliot's visit to Cambridge 1873

    Thank you for that passage.

    That passage would have to figure prominently in any accounting of the gradual squeezing out of joy and vitality from the West.

    No God, no immortality, just some vague, abstract, imprisoning Law.

    That is where Europe had got by the end of the 19th century. The next 100 years of decadence and collapse is just commentary I guess.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  214. @utu
    Marx and Engels were before Friedan. You can find marriage=prostitution in Communist Manifesto.

    Well, it is obviously private ownership of services unmanaged by the state; such domestic services are also unaccounted for and all potential tyranny that is not the state is of course more horrible than state tyranny. It would be ideal for the state to have all sex be billed, this could be regulated and taxed; this would also greatly increase the recorded GDP in the country.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  215. Rosie says:
    @Talha
    Hi Rosie, I actually wasn’t defending dfordoom. He’s a big boy, he can defend himself. I was merely making a case about “arranged marriage”, which it seems, the term itself is seen differently by people. The matchmaking I described has always been referred to as an arranged marriage. So maybe dfordoom was referring to this matchmaking model. He can elaborate.

    As far as marriage is concerned; from a strictly legal perspective, it really has been a woman’s exchange of sexual services for a man providing room and board.

    This legal arrangement forms the skeleton of the institution, and it can last purely on this basis as a kind of business transaction; what’s love got to do with it?

    Kidding aside though, thankfully, the vast majority of marriages around the world are built on love, respect and mutual goals on top of that legal foundation.

    Peace.

    Note: Interesting read on this subject:
    “A woman who wants to divorce her husband on the grounds she is unhappy has lost her Supreme Court appeal.
    Tini Owens, 68, from Worcestershire, wanted the court to grant her a divorce from her husband of 40 years Hugh, who is refusing the split.”
    https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-england-hereford-worcester-44949856

    “A woman who wants to divorce her husband on the grounds she is unhappy has lost her Supreme Court appeal.

    Good.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  216. Rosie says:
    @Jason Liu
    Being forthright is antithetical to a woman's strategies in the sexual marketplace and will never be practiced on a large scale.

    Being forthright is antithetical to a woman’s strategies in the sexual marketplace and will never be practiced on a large scale.

    So you say. Where is your evidence?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  217. Rosie says:
    @dfordoom

    It’s sort of strange to consider, but I think arranged marriages were pretty common in the West, not that long ago.
     
    In most sane societies it has been recognised that young people (both male and female) are unbelievably stupid and impulsive and irresponsible. If left entirely to their own devices to make their own decisions they will almost invariably manage to make the wrong decisions. In the case of marriage they will tend to make decisions based on emotion and/or lust.

    Parents are assumed to have more sense, being old enough to have learnt to exercise judgment, so it's logical that parents should have the right, and the responsibility, to push their children into making more sensible decisions that they would otherwise make. This seems to be understood in Islamic societies. Because the West has gone collectively insane it is no longer understood in western society.

    Compared to western society Islam is simply a bit more realistic about human nature.

    Compared to western society Islam is simply a bit more realistic about human nature.

    Thank you Dr. Doom of Arabia.

    If left entirely to their own devices to make their own decisions they will almost invariably manage to make the wrong decisions. In the case of marriage they will tend to make decisions based on emotion and/or lust.

    Amish parents take a near-totally hands-off approach, and the youth find partners and stay married for life. If there is a successful indigenous model of marriage based on free choice, why do you feel compelled to glorify alien traditions?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    I would 100% support the rest of Western society adopting these kinds of traditions from within its own people - indigenous forms that work are best suited for people.

    The Amish of course do not encourage fornication nor shacking up nor marriage outside their group.

    Marriage based on mutual affection is not prostitution
     
    .
    There are two aspects to marriage just like any legally recognized partnership between two people (even a business partnership).

    One is the idealized form - which you outlined and everyone should strive for.

    The other is the barebones legal aspect which comes into play when things break down and the husband/wife go to court to demand legal enforcement of their rights; “Judge, my husband/wife does not provide me with X, I need my rights fulfilled.” What are those legal rights? You agreed that being kept “happy” is not a legal obligation in marriage.

    Both are called a marriage, but obviously of different levels.

    Peace.
    , @Talha
    Also I think you might be making this too personal. That dfordoom said something positive about Islam does not mean he wants to adopt Arab culture. Europeans had their own ways of arranging marriages/matchmaking in the past. Songbird mentioned this was likely the scenario only two generations ago within one’s own family. One can simply return to a modified form of those arrangements.

    I don’t think anyone here is advocating any form of forced marriage.

    Peace.

    , @dfordoom

    Amish parents take a near-totally hands-off approach, and the youth find partners and stay married for life.
     
    The Amish are a poor choice of example. They only survive by having very large numbers of children, most of whom abandon their religion and their community. The Amish appear to be successful, but they aren't really.

    If there is a successful indigenous model of marriage based on free choice, why do you feel compelled to glorify alien traditions?
     
    Arranged marriages are not an alien tradition. Arranged marriages do not necessarily imply coercion, it's more a matter of applying pressure to prevent young people from making dumb choices. That's very much part of western cultural tradition.

    Our existing model of marriage is clearly not working. Why not return to an earlier western model that did work?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  218. Rosie says:
    @dfordoom

    When you agree to exchange sexual services for material support, you’re a prostitute.
     
    Now I have no idea what you're trying to argue. Are you saying that marriage is the same as prostitution? So how would an arranged marriage be any different in that respect from any other marriage?

    Now I have no idea what you’re trying to argue. Are you saying that marriage is the same as prostitution? So how would an arranged marriage be any different in that respect from any other marriage?

    Marriage based on mutual affection is not prostitution. It is a partnership. It is the transactional (and non-companionate) nature of the arrangement that makes it prostitution. As I said, when you have sex with a man for consideration, in cash or in kind, the essence of the arrangement is transactional.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Marriage based on mutual affection is not prostitution. It is a partnership. It is the transactional (and non-companionate) nature of the arrangement that makes it prostitution.
     
    Marriage is a contract. It is inherently transactional.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  219. Rosie says:
    @utu
    Marx and Engels were before Friedan. You can find marriage=prostitution in Communist Manifesto.

    Marx and Engels were before Friedan. You can find marriage=prostitution in Communist Manifesto.

    I find it interesting that men here are so dismissive of my view that marrying for financial support constitutes prostitution. I thought men hated gold-diggers, preferring instead to have a woman choose them for more companionship-related reasons.

    Anyway, the point is this. If women are denied any independent means of support, they are in effect forced into an unwanted marriage (i.e. prostitution). This is the policy that Dr. Doom advocates if I’m not mistaken.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu

    I find it interesting that men here are so dismissive of my view that marrying for financial support constitutes prostitution.
     
    Sometimes it is and sometimes it is not. And in a long run certainly it is not because there is not much sex going on anyway. Usually there are children.

    Nobody denies women independent means of support anymore. Whether all women like it that's another question.

    If you are a libertarian woman you may spiral down to where everything becomes a transaction that should be spelled out and should have a tangible exchange value. You would not say 'hello' or 'thank you' before calculated the value of the transaction and what you get in return. Then also your cunt is just a commodity. But do you want to live in the Libertarian Paradise?
    , @dfordoom

    I find it interesting that men here are so dismissive of my view that marrying for financial support constitutes prostitution.
     
    Until recently all women who married did so to a large extent for financial support. Many still do. Does that mean that all women in the past were prostitutes?

    I thought men hated gold-diggers, preferring instead to have a woman choose them for more companionship-related reasons.
     
    Gold-diggers have been despised by both men and women when they've practised deception. But when they're entirely honest and up-front about it I doubt that most people are seriously bothered by it.

    Most people like to think that they marry for love . That's why so many marriages fail. It's not a good basis for a successful marriage. Firstly, because when you're young you can't tell the difference between love and lust. And secondly because decisions made on emotional grounds usually turn out badly.

    It's wiser to be a bit more hardheaded about marriage. And there's nothing wrong with taking into account the man's ability to support a family, just as there's nothing wrong with taking into account the morals of the prospective spouse.

    This is the policy that Dr. Doom advocates if I’m not mistaken.
     
    I'm flattered that you've awarded me a doctorate. But you are mistaken.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  220. Talha says:
    @Rosie

    Compared to western society Islam is simply a bit more realistic about human nature.
     
    Thank you Dr. Doom of Arabia.

    If left entirely to their own devices to make their own decisions they will almost invariably manage to make the wrong decisions. In the case of marriage they will tend to make decisions based on emotion and/or lust.
     
    Amish parents take a near-totally hands-off approach, and the youth find partners and stay married for life. If there is a successful indigenous model of marriage based on free choice, why do you feel compelled to glorify alien traditions?

    I would 100% support the rest of Western society adopting these kinds of traditions from within its own people – indigenous forms that work are best suited for people.

    The Amish of course do not encourage fornication nor shacking up nor marriage outside their group.

    Marriage based on mutual affection is not prostitution

    .
    There are two aspects to marriage just like any legally recognized partnership between two people (even a business partnership).

    One is the idealized form – which you outlined and everyone should strive for.

    The other is the barebones legal aspect which comes into play when things break down and the husband/wife go to court to demand legal enforcement of their rights; “Judge, my husband/wife does not provide me with X, I need my rights fulfilled.” What are those legal rights? You agreed that being kept “happy” is not a legal obligation in marriage.

    Both are called a marriage, but obviously of different levels.

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  221. Rosie says:
    @Daniel Chieh
    Friedan-era feminism classically equates marriage with prostitution(or worse, sexual slavery and domestic labor). Its nothing new, and actually rather mild compared to some, who equated all genital male-to-female sex as rape.

    Its pretty entertaining in its own way, but ultimately it is indeed a destructive cult.

    Friedan-era feminism classically equates marriage with prostitution(or worse, sexual slavery and domestic labor). Its nothing new, and actually rather mild compared to some, who equated all genital male-to-female sex as rape.

    For what it’s worth, I didn’t equate marriage with prostitution, only forced marriage. As another commenter pointed out, sexual and domestic slavery might actually be a better analogy, though it’s not clear that there is any meaningful difference between forced prostitution and domestic labor on the one hand and forced prostitution on the other.

    My position is more like that of the Catholic Church:

    1627 The consent consists in a “human act by which the partners mutually give themselves to each other”: “I take you to be my wife” – “I take you to be my husband.”[126] This consent that binds the spouses to each other finds its fulfillment in the two “becoming one flesh.”[127]

    1628 The consent must be an act of the will of each of the contracting parties, free of coercion or grave external fear.[128] No human power can substitute for this consent.[129] If this freedom is lacking the marriage is invalid.

    If I’m not mistaken, the Church considers any forced null and void, but potentially valid if genuine marital affection develops between the parties. Again, it is the companionate relationship that brings the relationship into conformity with God’s plan for marriage.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    The Catholic Church also indicated that procreation is the primary purpose of intercourse, and prohibited all almost all forms of contraception. Abortion was murder, and therefore an excommunicable offense.

    ... I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man...For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, foreasmuch as he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
     
    (1 Corinthians 11:3 & 7-9)

    When my ex-girlfriend worked for the UN in Georgia a few years ago, she still had to cover her head in church(to others, yes, yes, I'm pretty sure that she was yet another POZ-ling sent to undermine a traditional society, shush already, I wasn't dating her at the time). As per Aquinas, women were so fundamentally defective that they were not considered as valid witnesses or, of course, own property and this was reflected in canon law. Women were protected, in the same way that their status was the rough equivalent to that of children(and children were protected).

    I don't really care to argue too much way or another - I'm very right-wing and I've grown up with extreme liberal groups, even technically been part of a outright "feminist" organization a few years ago, so I've heard it all before. I think its better to signal for deep anti-feminism because its always better to overshoot your case, and then hope to meet somewhere in the middle. Maybe women will be pleasant again.

    But really I'm too misanthropic. Humanity exists to self-destruct. Civilization is the ultimately doom of civilization.
    , @dfordoom

    The consent must be an act of the will of each of the contracting parties, free of coercion or grave external fear.
     
    In mediaeval times it was quite common for marriages to be arranged by the parents but the marriage only went ahead if both parties consented. In other words these were not forced marriages. Some pressure would certainly have been brought to bear on the young people to accept a suitable sensible marriage but both the woman and the man could refuse to consent. In which case Mom and Dad would look for another more suitable partner.

    That's pretty much what I would advocate. Arranged, but not forced, marriages.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  222. Talha says:
    @Rosie

    Compared to western society Islam is simply a bit more realistic about human nature.
     
    Thank you Dr. Doom of Arabia.

    If left entirely to their own devices to make their own decisions they will almost invariably manage to make the wrong decisions. In the case of marriage they will tend to make decisions based on emotion and/or lust.
     
    Amish parents take a near-totally hands-off approach, and the youth find partners and stay married for life. If there is a successful indigenous model of marriage based on free choice, why do you feel compelled to glorify alien traditions?

    Also I think you might be making this too personal. That dfordoom said something positive about Islam does not mean he wants to adopt Arab culture. Europeans had their own ways of arranging marriages/matchmaking in the past. Songbird mentioned this was likely the scenario only two generations ago within one’s own family. One can simply return to a modified form of those arrangements.

    I don’t think anyone here is advocating any form of forced marriage.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosie

    That dfordoom said something positive about Islam does not mean he wants to adopt Arab culture.
     
    He wants, in his own words, "White Sharia."

    I don’t think anyone here is advocating any form of forced marriage.
     
    >I'm afraid I must disagree with you there, good Sir. All of this carrying on about how women ruin everything, can't do anything right, etc. is an attempt to make a case for forcing women into marriage (i.e. prostitution) The idea is that potential good providers (beta males) can't find wives because women are hypergamous whores who would rather work a job and sleep around till they're thirty. The solution: Deprive them of the ability to earn their own living and they'll be forced to "marry" unappealing betas, for "room and board."

    Now, I have repeatedly provided evidence to the contrary, but these manosphere guys who have unfortunately invaded our movement pay no mind to evidence. Like certain other people, they pretend not to remember the ten times you demolished them in a debate and just go on repeating the same lies over and over again.
    , @songbird
    In the West, be hear a lot of horror stories that color our thoughts. Things often have a spectrum, but I don't think that's the way it worked most of the time. You can certainly hear a lot of horror stories about non-arranged marriages too.

    I think of the old custom in a couple of ways: it was a way that families could do a bit of recon - find out the other people were not thieves or crazy. It often resulted in brides being located near their male kin - as a kind of insurance. It helped encourage people to be more responsible in their life goals. Women were encouraged to have children. Men to gain property so they could marry.

    One can see some of the morality in it, simply by comparing the legacy. If you are alive today, you are probably the product of arranged marriages in the not too distant past. Compare that to all the lonely and childless people, with no legacy.

    At the very least - I think society's priorities are messed up now, and could use some retuning. Whether that is the old system, or match-making computer algorithms, I don't know.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  223. Dmitry says:
    @Daniel Chieh
    I think that's drawing too close of a definition on it; the classical Robinson Crusoe is a novel, but it is also is very moralizing in many parts. Without understanding any of the satire, the work can still be appreciated as a 'stranger in a strange land" narrative - and some reviewers at the time treated it as such, with its entire faux autobiographical style.

    Tolstoy and Dostoevsky is really rather uniquely Russian more than anything else; its pacing is very different from most English works. Relatively few events, for example, really happens in Crime and Punishment, but that's not the important part; its the exploration of a soul tormented by guilt which matters.

    Use of unusual pacing is not anything Russian (or in earlier novels), it is simply reflecting literary experiments of second half of 19th century onwards.

    Dostoevsky – one of the first to experiment with slow pacing (first hundred pages of Idiot is one night only). But after a while, this is fashionable around the world, and there are many novels which are slowing down time. In the early 20th century, reaches its limit – with Mrs Dalloway and Ulysses both novels contained completely in one day. Ulysses – 730 page novel about a single day.

    Dostoevsky, who originally was quite pioneering, then seems very normal and conservative by comparison to novels of 1920s like Ulysses.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    Right, but that kind of refutes your point that novels of the same era all have great similarities. When Dostoevsky was writing Crime and Punishment, Hugo's Les Misérables was just released and it has completely different pacing, storytelling structure, methods and attitude, even though in some ways it is vaguely similar(stories of miserably, poor people and interactions with criminality).

    I do think that distance and language has something to do with it. You see the entire "news clip" style in both English and French stories of the time: Dracula had it, Phantom of the Opera, and so on. Off the top of my head, I can't recall any Russian novel that did that(enlighten me?), and it was kinda tacky and no one does it anymore.

    , @Bardon Kaldian
    More important than all the techniques -although I don't know what this all has to with the topic- is that Dostoevsky is, like Melville or Nietzsche, writing from a primitive prophetic mind, an approach which is, perhaps, better suited to religious texts, both poetic & prose, than to overwhelmingly secular novel.

    Howard Bloom has finely observed this:

    Raskolnikov is a powerful representation of the will demonized by its own strength, while Svidrigailov is beyond that, and stands on the border of a convincing phantasmagoria. Until the unfortunate epilogue, no other narrative fiction drives itself onwards with the remorseless strength of Crime and Punishment, truly a shot out of hell and into hell again. To have written a naturalistic novel that reads like a continuous nightmare is Dostoevsky’s unique achievement.
     

    Raskolnikov never does repent and change, unless we believe the epilogue, in which Dostoevsky himself scarcely believed. Despair causes his surrender to Porfiry, but even his despair never matches the fierce ecstasy he has achieved in violating all limits. He breaks what can be broken and yet does not break himself. He cannot be broken, not because he has found any truth, objective or psychological, but because he has known, however momentarily, the nihilistic abyss, a Gnostic freedom of what is beyond our sense of being creatures in God’s creation. Konstantin Mochulsky is surely right to emphasize that Raskolnikov never comes to believe in redemption, never rejects his theory of strength and power. His surrender, as Mochulsky says, “is not a sign of penitence but of pusillanimity.” We end up with a pre-Christian tragic hero ruined by blind fate, at least in his own vision. But this is about as unattractive as a tragic hero can be, because Raskolnikov comes too late in cultural history to seem a Prometheus rather than a bookish intellectual. In a Christian context, Prometheus assimilates to Satan, and Raskolnikov’s pride begins to seem too satanic for tragedy.
     

    Raskolnikov hardly persuades us on the level of Dostoevsky’s Christian polemic, but psychologically he is fearsomely persuasive. Power for Raskolnikov can be defined as the ability to kill someone else, anyone at all, rather than oneself. I meet Raskolnikov daily, though generally not in so extreme a form, in many young contemporaries who constitute what I would call the School of Resentment. Their wounded narcissism, turned against the self, might make them poets or critics; turned outward, against others, it makes them eminent unrest-inducers. Raskolnikov does not move our sympathy for him, but he impresses us with his uncompromising intensity.
     

    Svidrigailov may have been intended as Raskolnikov’s foil, but he got away from Dostoevsky, and runs off with the book, even as old Karamazov nearly steals the greater work away from the extraordinary Dmitri. Raskolnikov is too pure a Promethean or devil to be interested in desire, unless the object of desire be metaphysical freedom and power. He is a kind of ascetic Gnostic, while Svidrigailov is a libertine Gnostic, attempting to liberate the sparks upward. If Raskolnikov portrays the madness of the Promethean will, then Svidrigailov is beyond the will, as he is beyond the still-religious affirmations of atheism. He lives (if that can be the right word) a negativity that Raskolnikov is too much himself to attain. Raskolnikov killed for his own sake, he tells Sonia, to test his own strength. Svidrigailov is light years beyond that, on the way downwards and outwards into the abyss, his foremother and forefather. The best of all murder stories, Crime and Punishment seems to me beyond praise and beyond affection.
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  224. Dmitry says:
    @Bardon Kaldian
    “Man is the measure of all things”

    “Concerning the gods I cannot know either that they exist or that they do not exist, or what form they might have, for there is much to prevent one's knowing: the obscurity of the subject and the shortness of man's life.”

    Protagoras (/proʊˈtæɡərəs/; Greek: Πρωταγόρας; c. 490 – c. 420 BC)

    First Protagoras quote is really a statement of relativism (not individualism) though, and very strongly rejected by Socrates in the Plato’s dialogue which is called his name.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
    First Protagoras' quote was on anthropocentrism, which is, among other things, both individualism AND relativism. And Socrates, while trying to reject Protagoras, could not disprove him. You cannot prove nor disprove a world-view.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  225. @Rosie

    Friedan-era feminism classically equates marriage with prostitution(or worse, sexual slavery and domestic labor). Its nothing new, and actually rather mild compared to some, who equated all genital male-to-female sex as rape.
     
    For what it's worth, I didn't equate marriage with prostitution, only forced marriage. As another commenter pointed out, sexual and domestic slavery might actually be a better analogy, though it's not clear that there is any meaningful difference between forced prostitution and domestic labor on the one hand and forced prostitution on the other.

    My position is more like that of the Catholic Church:

    1627 The consent consists in a "human act by which the partners mutually give themselves to each other": "I take you to be my wife" - "I take you to be my husband."[126] This consent that binds the spouses to each other finds its fulfillment in the two "becoming one flesh."[127]

    1628 The consent must be an act of the will of each of the contracting parties, free of coercion or grave external fear.[128] No human power can substitute for this consent.[129] If this freedom is lacking the marriage is invalid.

    If I'm not mistaken, the Church considers any forced null and void, but potentially valid if genuine marital affection develops between the parties. Again, it is the companionate relationship that brings the relationship into conformity with God's plan for marriage.

    The Catholic Church also indicated that procreation is the primary purpose of intercourse, and prohibited all almost all forms of contraception. Abortion was murder, and therefore an excommunicable offense.

    … I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man…For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, foreasmuch as he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

    (1 Corinthians 11:3 & 7-9)

    When my ex-girlfriend worked for the UN in Georgia a few years ago, she still had to cover her head in church(to others, yes, yes, I’m pretty sure that she was yet another POZ-ling sent to undermine a t