Late Republican Rome

[The Minsky Moment]

There is something to be said for living in a society that had a sound legal system, road network, sound water supply, etc.

Yes they did have those things and medieval Europe did not.  The Roman Empire was able to build and maintain much higher levels of infrastructure than medieval kingdoms and levels of commerce and wealth were superior until the high middle ages.  Part of the reason the Roman Empire was able to construct and maintain infrastructure was the sound legal system, the bureaucracy, and the horizontal and vertical cooperation among local elites and imperial structures.  But those were necessary conditions, not sufficient, as the experience of late antiquity demonstrated.  Another part of the reason the empire was able to maintain its infrastructure in the West was by exploiting resources from the south (the granaries of Africa and Egypt) and the east (tax revenue).

[grumbler]

Probably thinking about the Cyprus or Bar Kochba uprisings (palestine), although even those require fully crediting Cassius Dio's account.  Since Palestinian rabbis are busy putting together the Mishnah in Palestine only a few decades later, total expulsion either did not happen or was not seriously enforced.

But, are you a "serious person?"  Raz apparently thinks no "serious person" could disagree with him. 

[grumbler]

Actually Claudius was accused of being a Jewish bastard by the leader of anti-Jewish faction in Alexandria, due to his supposedly pro-Jewish stance. The use of the term "Pogrom" to describe the conflicts between Greeks and Jews in Alexandria is disputed.

Are you a "serious person" by Raz's standards? 

[grumbler]

The anti-intellectualism in Rome, even for things they seemed to value like mathmatics and engineering, is stupifying.  Nobody can really explain to me why since innovations in political structures, legal reforms, and military tactics seemed to come easily enough to the Romans.

The Romans didn't like visible changes.  They wanted to believe that they were still living in the more pure world of their legendary ancestors, and were just adding to it, not replacing it.  Thus, they didn't develop architecture or math beyond the level of getting the bugs out of what they had.   I agree that it is kind of mysterious in a people so otherwise-worldly, but it isn't all that unusual amongst people who worship their own past.

[The Brain]

Who the fuck likes intellectuals? Of course the practical Romans looked down on them.

[Tamas]

Who the fuck likes intellectuals? Of course the practical Romans looked down on them.

[Razgovory]

Probably thinking about the Cyprus or Bar Kochba uprisings (palestine), although even those require fully crediting Cassius Dio's account.  Since Palestinian rabbis are busy putting together the Mishnah in Palestine only a few decades later, total expulsion either did not happen or was not seriously enforced.

But, are you a "serious person?"  Raz apparently thinks no "serious person" could disagree with him. 

By "serious person" I meant, a non-Grumbler.

[grumbler]

By "serious person" I meant, a non-Grumbler.

Are you a "serious person," by your standards?

[Razgovory]

By "serious person" I meant, a non-Grumbler.

Are you a "serious person," by your standards?

I'm not you.  And no, I do not desire to find an online source to back up my contention that you and I are different people.

[Eddie Teach]

Am I a serious person?

[grumbler]

I'm not you.  And no, I do not desire to find an online source to back up my contention that you and I are different people.

Okay, now that you have clarified (for reasons that I am sure made sense to you when you decided to make that clarification) that you are sure that you are not me, maybe you can address the question at hand:  are you a "serious person," by your standards?  AFAIAC, you don't need to find an online source to discover what your opinion is in this.  Obviously, you may do so if that is your wish.

As an aside, you don't need to contend you are not any other specific person, either.  No one outside of you is contending that you are not you. 

[crazy canuck]

If Raz has read Euthyphro he is going to stay well clear of that question.

That is if he read it and understood it.

[grumbler]

If Raz has read Euthyphro he is going to stay well clear of that question.

That is if he read it and understood it.

Perhaps.  I don't understand his concept myself (hence the question), but it scarcely seems possible that Raz can steer clear of, or misunderstand, his own concept! 

[Queequeg]

Third, medieval christianity was religiously focused to an extent that harmed society. Putting your best educated minds into monastaries to spend large portions of their time in prayer and contemplation of god isn't the best way to get bridges built or fields planted.

How does literacy survive in Western Europe without the Monasteries?  I'm pretty sure Europe would have done the full Greek Archaic Period-loss of literacy, loss of intellectual heritage, return to barter economy-without the Church. 

I also think you are comparing apples to oranges.  The Roman Empire was able to draw upon thousands of years of Greek, Egyptian, Persian, Mesopotamian and other learning.  The peoples of Medieval Europe knew that these places existed only because they were in the Bible. The collapse of inter-Roman trade networks, followed by the growth of Islam, just cut off Europe from all the traditional centers of civilization. 

[alfred russel]

Third, medieval christianity was religiously focused to an extent that harmed society. Putting your best educated minds into monastaries to spend large portions of their time in prayer and contemplation of god isn't the best way to get bridges built or fields planted.

How does literacy survive in Western Europe without the Monasteries?  I'm pretty sure Europe would have done the full Greek Archaic Period-loss of literacy, loss of intellectual heritage, return to barter economy-without the Church. 

You may be right, but I've been responding to Eddie Teach making a comparison between christian and classical, not christian and non romanized germanic tribes (or anything else). The focus of medieval christian learning on theology is better than ignoring learning altogether, but still crappy.

I also think you are comparing apples to oranges.  The Roman Empire was able to draw upon thousands of years of Greek, Egyptian, Persian, Mesopotamian and other learning.  The peoples of Medieval Europe knew that these places existed only because they were in the Bible. The collapse of inter-Roman trade networks, followed by the growth of Islam, just cut off Europe from all the traditional centers of civilization. 

I don't think that is relevant--a comparison was made between systems of morality. In my point of view, a system that places primary emphasis on learning and contemplating superstition is inferior to one that does not.

But to make a broader point, what you are saying is not entirely fair. Rome adopted Christianity as a state religion early in the 4th century. At the time Rome still could draw on all the sources that you mention. But as time went on, and the Romans evolved into medieval Europeans, they lost the cultural knowledge. Don't tell me it was just because they were cut off from traditional centers of civilization. The Bible was preserved, the institutions of the Church were preserved, the doctrines and history of the early Church were preserved. What was forgotten were the legal concepts, the literature, the secular history, the science, medicine and engineering. Why was the secular heritage lost and the religious maintained? I don't think you can ignore that they succeeded in preserving what was most important to them.