Jared Diamond mentioned this in Collapse, a fantastic little anecdote.
Mycenaean, roughly the Bronze Age version of Greek, was a written language, but all our examples of the language are lists of sacrifices to Gods or tribute or payment. The written language appears to have had no popular usage, and died out very rapidly during the early part of the Greek Dark or Geometric period.
But this is our first example of Ancient Greek is the famous inscription on Nestor's drinking cup, which is (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestor's_Cup)
ΝΕΣΤΟΡΟΣ:...:ΕΥΠΟΤΟΝ:ΠΟΤΕΡΙΟΝ
ΗΟΣΔΑΤΟΔΕΠΙΕΣΙ:ΠΟΤΕΡΙ..:AΥΤΙΚΑΚΕΝΟΝ
ΗΙΜΕΡΟΣΗΑΙΡΕΣΕΙ:ΚΑΛΛΙΣΤΕΦΑΝΟ:ΑΦΡΟΔΙΤΕΣ
Or
Nestor's cup I am, good to drink from.
Whoever drinks this cup empty, straightaway
the desire of beautiful-crowned Aphrodite will seize.
So while the Mycaneans (and basically everyone else up until the Greeks) used the written language exclusively for religious or clerical purposes, the first real usage of Greek we have is a really very clever introduction by a cup, warning that the person drinking will get beer goggles. This is even funnier because Nestor's Cup plays an important part in The Illiad, so the first example we have of Greek is also our first example of literary satire.
Why were the Greeks different? Why did they do so much? Any thoughts? Opinions?
Phoenicians taught them. Before that, they were just uppity Serbs on a seaside holiday.
Wow! That's quite a bit of extrapolation based on a single case and a shitload of assumptions about what an absence of evidence implies! :lol:
Gay.
Quote from: grumbler on September 02, 2009, 04:18:01 PM
Wow! That's quite a bit of extrapolation based on a single case and a shitload of assumptions about what an absence of evidence implies! :lol:
:lol:
It was just the catalyst of me wondering why they were so special. I find it to be a good example of the Greek break from previous peoples that is probably better illustrated by, say, the Philosophers of Miletus. However, Nestor's Cup is funnier than Thales, and we all already know the military component of Greek awesomeness.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 02, 2009, 04:18:15 PM
Gay.
A lot of the Indo-European peoples had gay inclinations. And the Semitic peoples. Compariatively speaking the Minoans were way gayer than all save the Thebans, and even among the Greeks the Celts had a reputation for loving gay sex.
I'm almost done with Guns, Germs, and Steel. While the first parts are good his descriptions different levels of societies falls flat. I think he is way to biased toward his beloved New Guineans. Going so far as to say that they are the smartest people in the world.
Quote from: Queequeg on September 02, 2009, 04:23:38 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 02, 2009, 04:18:15 PM
Gay.
A lot of the Indo-European peoples had gay inclinations. And the Semitic peoples. Compariatively speaking the Minoans were way gayer than all save the Thebans, and even among the Greeks the Celts had a reputation for loving gay sex.
People throughout history and all over the world have accused their neighbors of gayness. The Greeks have kept the reputation due to its prevalence in their own writing about themselves.
Short and simple but serious answer: long coastline and scarcity of natural resources and arable land.
Compare this to Egypt and draw your own conclusions. ;)
Quote from: Martinus on September 02, 2009, 04:41:33 PM
Short and simple but serious answer: long coastline and scarcity of natural resources and arable land.
Compare this to Egypt and draw your own conclusions. ;)
Both were smart in their own ways?
I would say... competition.
The Greek world was a patchwork of small-knited "nationalist" city-state that competed in everything, from sports to military achievements, from poetry to architecture. Not every creation was valuable; but the sheer quantity of works ensured that at least some of them were pieces of genius. For example, we know of only three great tragic authors, all three living in that great period of 500 to 400. But the real number of tragic authors was huge: even some philosophers wrote tragedies. I would suspect that in each city housing an amphiteater there was some kind of local author trying to have his plays on the stage, between those of Sophocles and Eurypides.
In philosophy the situation is the same. Apart from some works, we have literally only a small handful of the ancient philosophical texts. Many of them were lost in time; but I suspect that most of them had no real value. Antiquity kept only the best (with some exceptions, of course).
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 02, 2009, 04:44:21 PM
Both were smart in their own ways?
The Egyptians were sure smart but they were so conservative and so hostile to foreign and new ideas.
Quote from: grumbler on September 02, 2009, 04:18:01 PM
Wow! That's quite a bit of extrapolation based on a single case and a shitload of assumptions about what an absence of evidence implies! :lol:
That's Jared Diamond in a nutshell. He should've stuck to birdwatching.
Quote from: Valmy on September 02, 2009, 04:55:22 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 02, 2009, 04:44:21 PM
Both were smart in their own ways?
The Egyptians were sure smart but they were so conservative and so hostile to foreign and new ideas.
Until forced too, like having the Hykalos(*) occupy the Nile delta.
(*) if they really existed
Quote from: Valmy on September 02, 2009, 04:55:22 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 02, 2009, 04:44:21 PM
Both were smart in their own ways?
The Egyptians were sure smart but they were so conservative and so hostile to foreign and new ideas.
Yup. It's a classic comparison of a country built on trade (Greece) and on agriculture (Egypt). It's like comparing the Netherlands and Poland. :P
The question is, were they clever because they were Greeks, or were they Greeks because they were clever?
Quote from: Warspite on September 02, 2009, 05:05:07 PM
The question is, were they clever because they were Greeks, or were they Greeks because they were clever?
its all greek to me.
The Greeks considered butter barbaric and disgusting. They weren't that clever afterall.
Quote from: Martinus on September 02, 2009, 04:41:33 PM
Short and simple but serious answer: long coastline and scarcity of natural resources and arable land.
Compare this to Egypt and draw your own conclusions. ;)
Which is why Finland is a world power today.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 02, 2009, 05:17:26 PM
Which is why Finland is a world power today.
I knew the success of Nokia had to be explained somehow.
Quote from: Hansmeister on September 02, 2009, 04:57:34 PM
Quote from: grumbler on September 02, 2009, 04:18:01 PM
Wow! That's quite a bit of extrapolation based on a single case and a shitload of assumptions about what an absence of evidence implies! :lol:
That's Jared Diamond in a nutshell.
:yes:
Quote from: Hansmeister on September 02, 2009, 04:57:34 PM
Quote from: grumbler on September 02, 2009, 04:18:01 PM
Wow! That's quite a bit of extrapolation based on a single case and a shitload of assumptions about what an absence of evidence implies! :lol:
That's Jared Diamond in a nutshell. He should've stuck to birdwatching.
I hate to say this, but I kind of agree with you.
Jared Diamond is brilliant.
Why were the greeks different? I think it is because of how they were ruled. They were basically ruled by themselves. And by themselves I mean the part of the army that made winning battles possible, the hoplites. I'd not use the Myceneans as comparisons or even consider them relevant. The greek dark age killed their empire off and left greece barbaric for 700 years. I think the secret is in the dark age, it seems the only things the Myceneans really left was their language preserved through Homer and Hesiod. The language of Linear B survives and becomes greek, while they steal phonecian writing. The language is kept through the epic poetry and the values of Homer become the values of greece. Add that to the greek military system where the decisive branch was not a super elite charioteer, but rather a heavy infantryman. To reach the top of their society all you really needed was to afford armour and arms. Add to that nature of the greek countryside where small towns or large villages were the norm, rather than a large city dominating all the land for weeks around then you get a society where the most successful social organisation is one of small towns ruled by the men who fight and die for them. The polis allows for the successful cooperation of individuals for a common cause. Every other society needed a god-king to get the locals to dig a canal or build a temple. The polis allowed the local men to get together and agree, hey we need a temple, let's build one. They didn't need great architecture such as city walls (the battles were decisive in the field) they didn't need canals (they either didn't really have rivers or the narrow valley they lived in meant they were already next to it) etc.etc. I think this is one of the reasons there are so few archeological remains from the greek dark age. A social structure that didn't need stone and therefore didn't use it was emerging.
The polis and the citizen, that's what made the Greeks so clever.
It's the Ideas that matter. Just remember, once Classical Greek culture had been wiped from Greece by the Goths, Slavs, Bulgars and Ottomans the country reverted to the festering shit hole it had always been.
Someones romanticizing. :whistle:
Quote from: Jaron on September 02, 2009, 05:23:24 PM
Someones romanticizing. :whistle:
Everybody knows Greece was just a prelude to: Ottoman Empire.
Greeks->Romans->Byzantines->Ottomans->Armenians->Psellus->Obama->USA
Quote from: Jaron on September 02, 2009, 05:31:10 PM
Greeks->Romans->Byzantines->Ottomans->Armenians->Psellus->Obama->USA
Obama is the Dawn?
One day people will look back and ask "What were Americans so amazing?"
Hopefully, they'll discover the correct answer: "God." :goodboy:
garbon, honey, let's go party.
Quote from: Viking on September 02, 2009, 05:22:26 PM
Why were the greeks different? I think it is because of how they were ruled. They were basically ruled by themselves. And by themselves I mean the part of the army that made winning battles possible, the hoplites. I'd not use the Myceneans as comparisons or even consider them relevant. The greek dark age killed their empire off and left greece barbaric for 700 years. I think the secret is in the dark age, it seems the only things the Myceneans really left was their language preserved through Homer and Hesiod. The language of Linear B survives and becomes greek, while they steal phonecian writing. The language is kept through the epic poetry and the values of Homer become the values of greece. Add that to the greek military system where the decisive branch was not a super elite charioteer, but rather a heavy infantryman. To reach the top of their society all you really needed was to afford armour and arms. Add to that nature of the greek countryside where small towns or large villages were the norm, rather than a large city dominating all the land for weeks around then you get a society where the most successful social organisation is one of small towns ruled by the men who fight and die for them. The polis allows for the successful cooperation of individuals for a common cause. Every other society needed a god-king to get the locals to dig a canal or build a temple. The polis allowed the local men to get together and agree, hey we need a temple, let's build one. They didn't need great architecture such as city walls (the battles were decisive in the field) they didn't need canals (they either didn't really have rivers or the narrow valley they lived in meant they were already next to it) etc.etc. I think this is one of the reasons there are so few archeological remains from the greek dark age. A social structure that didn't need stone and therefore didn't use it was emerging.
The polis and the citizen, that's what made the Greeks so clever.
It's the Ideas that matter. Just remember, once Classical Greek culture had been wiped from Greece by the Goths, Slavs, Bulgars and Ottomans the country reverted to the festering shit hole it had always been.
You know what's awesome? Paragraphs.
What's all this about Goths wiping out Greeks? Has someone been playing to many AGEOD games?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 02, 2009, 06:37:56 PM
What's all this about Goths wiping out Greeks? Has someone been playing to many AGEOD games?
Goths couldn't wipe their own asses. Nobody is impressed by wearing chalk and eyeliner.
Quote from: Martinus on September 02, 2009, 05:00:14 PM
Yup. It's a classic comparison of a country built on trade (Greece) and on agriculture (Egypt). It's like comparing the Netherlands and Poland. :P
:console:
I hate to be monocausal, but country built on gay (Netherlands) and a country built on anti-gay (Poland). There's something to this theory...
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 02, 2009, 06:44:21 PM
:console:
I hate to be monocausal, but country built on gay (Netherlands) and a country built on anti-gay (Poland). There's something to this theory...
How was the Orange Republic built on Gay? Maybe some of the early explorers were looking to break out of the sexual constraints of Western Europe, but that was more the Portugese, as the Dutch at first just wanted to break the Iberian monopoly on global trade.
I'm guessing part of the reason that the Greeks were so clever was that Spellus wasn't there, dragging down the average IQ.
:P
That hasn't helped Ohio.
Quote from: Queequeg on September 02, 2009, 04:06:13 PM
the first real usage of Greek we have is a really very clever introduction by a cup, warning that the person drinking will get beer goggles
Two Greeks, One cup?
Quote from: Viking on September 02, 2009, 05:22:26 PM
The greek dark age killed their empire off and left greece barbaric for 700 years.
I'm not up to date on greek archaeology but iirc even a decade ago the general concensus seemed to be titlting towards a far far shorter dark age period of a few centuries at most.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on September 03, 2009, 12:13:50 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 02, 2009, 05:22:26 PM
The greek dark age killed their empire off and left greece barbaric for 700 years.
I'm not up to date on greek archaeology but iirc even a decade ago the general concensus seemed to be titlting towards a far far shorter dark age period of a few centuries at most.
Shh. Everyone knows we don't know anything about Greeks before 500 BC.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on September 03, 2009, 12:13:50 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 02, 2009, 05:22:26 PM
The greek dark age killed their empire off and left greece barbaric for 700 years.
I'm not up to date on greek archaeology but iirc even a decade ago the general concensus seemed to be titlting towards a far far shorter dark age period of a few centuries at most.
There is debate about this, some date them from 1050 BC til 800 BC, others 1200 BC til 500 BC. It depends on how you define it. It's really a sliding scale on the civilisation scale. The bronze age collapse (which starts the dark age) took up to a 150 years. When it ends is much more subjective. Is it when the greeks start sending out colonies or having history (rather than myth) or is it when the defining characteristic of the dark ages (lack of stone archeology) ends or is it the common use of Iron?
Quote from: Alexandru H. on September 02, 2009, 04:47:39 PM
I would say... competition.
The Greek world was a patchwork of small-knited "nationalist" city-state that competed in everything, from sports to military achievements, from poetry to architecture. Not every creation was valuable; but the sheer quantity of works ensured that at least some of them were pieces of genius. For example, we know of only three great tragic authors, all three living in that great period of 500 to 400. But the real number of tragic authors was huge: even some philosophers wrote tragedies. I would suspect that in each city housing an amphiteater there was some kind of local author trying to have his plays on the stage, between those of Sophocles and Eurypides.
But that was the situation of most of the world.
And most of the world sucked.
Quote from: Viking on September 03, 2009, 03:57:56 AM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on September 03, 2009, 12:13:50 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 02, 2009, 05:22:26 PM
The greek dark age killed their empire off and left greece barbaric for 700 years.
I'm not up to date on greek archaeology but iirc even a decade ago the general concensus seemed to be titlting towards a far far shorter dark age period of a few centuries at most.
There is debate about this, some date them from 1050 BC til 800 BC, others 1200 BC til 500 BC. It depends on how you define it. It's really a sliding scale on the civilisation scale. The bronze age collapse (which starts the dark age) took up to a 150 years. When it ends is much more subjective. Is it when the greeks start sending out colonies or having history (rather than myth) or is it when the defining characteristic of the dark ages (lack of stone archeology) ends or is it the common use of Iron?
I don't think I've ever heard anyone claiming that the Greek Dark Ages go up until Athens becoming a Democracy. I've never heard anyone claim it any later then Hesiod or Homer. The reason it was called a Dark Age was because there was a massive gap in knowledge. Historian probably know more about the 8th century then they did the 13th century
Quote from: garbon on September 02, 2009, 05:35:41 PM
One day people will look back and ask "What were Americans so amazing?"
Hopefully, they'll discover the correct answer: "God." :goodboy:
Hod actually :)
V
Quote from: Tyr on September 03, 2009, 04:23:36 AM
Quote from: Alexandru H. on September 02, 2009, 04:47:39 PM
I would say... competition.
The Greek world was a patchwork of small-knited "nationalist" city-state that competed in everything, from sports to military achievements, from poetry to architecture. Not every creation was valuable; but the sheer quantity of works ensured that at least some of them were pieces of genius. For example, we know of only three great tragic authors, all three living in that great period of 500 to 400. But the real number of tragic authors was huge: even some philosophers wrote tragedies. I would suspect that in each city housing an amphiteater there was some kind of local author trying to have his plays on the stage, between those of Sophocles and Eurypides.
But that was the situation of most of the world.
And most of the world sucked.
It wasn't. No other nation took so much pride in having contests. Look at Sophocles and the result of his achievements: kind of hard to find other nation in the ancient world showering a simple writer with so many signs of appreciation.
Quote from: Syt on September 02, 2009, 11:13:22 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on September 02, 2009, 04:06:13 PM
the first real usage of Greek we have is a really very clever introduction by a cup, warning that the person drinking will get beer goggles
Two Greeks, One cup?
:lmfao:
Quote from: Alexandru H. on September 02, 2009, 04:47:39 PM
I would say... competition.
The Greek world was a patchwork of small-knited "nationalist" city-state that competed in everything, from sports to military achievements, from poetry to architecture. Not every creation was valuable; but the sheer quantity of works ensured that at least some of them were pieces of genius. For example, we know of only three great tragic authors, all three living in that great period of 500 to 400. But the real number of tragic authors was huge: even some philosophers wrote tragedies. I would suspect that in each city housing an amphiteater there was some kind of local author trying to have his plays on the stage, between those of Sophocles and Eurypides.
In philosophy the situation is the same. Apart from some works, we have literally only a small handful of the ancient philosophical texts. Many of them were lost in time; but I suspect that most of them had no real value. Antiquity kept only the best (with some exceptions, of course).
I'm inclined to agree.
In a way you could also see a parallel between Greece and Europe, in that Greece was to the Mediterranean world what Europe was to the world - a relatively poor land divided between a patchwork of states filled with some angry and greedy motherfuckers.
Quote from: Queequeg on September 02, 2009, 04:06:13 PM
Jared Diamond mentioned this in Collapse, a fantastic little anecdote.
Mycenaean, roughly the Bronze Age version of Greek, was a written language, but all our examples of the language are lists of sacrifices to Gods or tribute or payment. The written language appears to have had no popular usage, and died out very rapidly during the early part of the Greek Dark or Geometric period.
But this is our first example of Ancient Greek is the famous inscription on Nestor's drinking cup, which is (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestor's_Cup)
ΝΕΣΤΟΡΟΣ:...:ΕΥΠΟΤΟΝ:ΠΟΤΕΡΙΟΝ
ΗΟΣΔΑΤΟΔΕΠΙΕΣΙ:ΠΟΤΕΡΙ..:AΥΤΙΚΑΚΕΝΟΝ
ΗΙΜΕΡΟΣΗΑΙΡΕΣΕΙ:ΚΑΛΛΙΣΤΕΦΑΝΟ:ΑΦΡΟΔΙΤΕΣ
Or
Nestor's cup I am, good to drink from.
Whoever drinks this cup empty, straightaway
the desire of beautiful-crowned Aphrodite will seize.
So while the Mycaneans (and basically everyone else up until the Greeks) used the written language exclusively for religious or clerical purposes, the first real usage of Greek we have is a really very clever introduction by a cup, warning that the person drinking will get beer goggles. This is even funnier because Nestor's Cup plays an important part in The Illiad, so the first example we have of Greek is also our first example of literary satire.
Why were the Greeks different? Why did they do so much? Any thoughts? Opinions?
I thinks the same reason that one of the words for assfucking is doing it greek. clears the mind. :contract:
Quote from: Martinus on September 03, 2009, 05:24:27 PM
I'm inclined to agree.
In a way you could also see a parallel between Greece and Europe, in that Greece was to the Mediterranean world what Europe was to the world - a relatively poor land divided between a patchwork of states filled with some angry and greedy motherfuckers.
Except that Europe is a very rich land.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 04, 2009, 09:07:43 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 03, 2009, 05:24:27 PM
I'm inclined to agree.
In a way you could also see a parallel between Greece and Europe, in that Greece was to the Mediterranean world what Europe was to the world - a relatively poor land divided between a patchwork of states filled with some angry and greedy motherfuckers.
Except that Europe is a very rich land.
Historically that's not true, Europe was quite poor compared to East Asia and the Middle East, especially when you moved in from the Mediterranean coast.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 04, 2009, 09:09:31 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 04, 2009, 09:07:43 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 03, 2009, 05:24:27 PM
I'm inclined to agree.
In a way you could also see a parallel between Greece and Europe, in that Greece was to the Mediterranean world what Europe was to the world - a relatively poor land divided between a patchwork of states filled with some angry and greedy motherfuckers.
Except that Europe is a very rich land.
Historically that's not true, Europe was quite poor compared to East Asia and the Middle East, especially when you moved in from the Mediterranean coast.
I thought we were talking about the natural resources not wealth of the people.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 04, 2009, 09:11:02 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 04, 2009, 09:09:31 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 04, 2009, 09:07:43 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 03, 2009, 05:24:27 PM
I'm inclined to agree.
In a way you could also see a parallel between Greece and Europe, in that Greece was to the Mediterranean world what Europe was to the world - a relatively poor land divided between a patchwork of states filled with some angry and greedy motherfuckers.
Except that Europe is a very rich land.
Historically that's not true, Europe was quite poor compared to East Asia and the Middle East, especially when you moved in from the Mediterranean coast.
I thought we were talking about the natural resources not wealth of the people.
it's linked but it changes. the question is whether one can tap into the resources and then use them, which is dependent on technology and knowledge.
like, grazing and hunting buffalo on oilsands did not help the Dene much. now, it's the 21st century, and northern Alberta hosts the biggest construction project on the planet.
Northern Europe did not come into its own, economically (and resource-wise), until the Middle Ages. and then it grew a whole lot more.
Maybe the greeks were exceptional because they were absorbed by the Romans, who had a fetish for their intellectuals? If the Romans had the same attitudes toward the Greeks as the Greeks/Macedonians had to the Persians, would we have enough exposure to their works to consider them a cornerstone of western civilization?
I don't think of them as the corner stone of western civilization.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 05, 2009, 12:30:28 AM
I don't think of them as the corner stone of western civilization.
well, there's two major tracks. one is the classical (romano-greek) and the other is middle eastern (jews [religion] and phoenicans [alphabet] and arabs [math and a lot of other useful stuff]).
there's other influences of course, and all those named cultures influenced eachother throughout history but Europe's syncretic genius was bringing them all in and then going beyond.
I view the Mediterranean civilization as having collapsed in the West a little after Rome fell but last longer in the east. Western civilization started on the rubble of the older one, and while it borrowed alot from the past it was distinctly different.
Quote from: saskganesh on September 05, 2009, 01:49:45 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 05, 2009, 12:30:28 AM
I don't think of them as the corner stone of western civilization.
well, there's two major tracks. one is the classical (romano-greek) and the other is middle eastern (jews [religion] and phoenicans [alphabet] and arabs [math and a lot of other useful stuff]).
there's other influences of course, and all those named cultures influenced eachother throughout history but Europe's syncretic genius was bringing them all in and then going beyond.
Yup. The common meme is that the Western civilization rests on three pillars: the Greek philosophy (and by extension, political ideology), the Roman law and the Christian religion. The fact that Christian religion itself is a mix of Hellenic and Jewish ideas gives Greeks 1.5 out of the 3, which is not bad. :P
Quote from: Razgovory on September 05, 2009, 02:18:00 AM
I view the Mediterranean civilization as having collapsed in the West a little after Rome fell but last longer in the east. Western civilization started on the rubble of the older one, and while it borrowed alot from the past it was distinctly different.
That's rather ignorant. The entire history of Western philosophy and ideology can be described as an argument between Aristotle and Plato.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 05, 2009, 02:18:00 AM
I view the Mediterranean civilization as having collapsed in the West a little after Rome fell but last longer in the east. Western civilization started on the rubble of the older one, and while it borrowed alot from the past it was distinctly different.
That's a view that has come under quite a bit of pressure -and rightfully so- in the last few decades.
A better cesure (sp? I mean breaking-point) is the rise of the arabs. That one cut the Mediterranean world truly in two (and even then the cutting was never absolute)
Quote from: Martinus on September 05, 2009, 03:29:04 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 05, 2009, 02:18:00 AM
I view the Mediterranean civilization as having collapsed in the West a little after Rome fell but last longer in the east. Western civilization started on the rubble of the older one, and while it borrowed alot from the past it was distinctly different.
That's rather ignorant. The entire history of Western philosophy and ideology can be described as an argument between Aristotle and Plato.
If you go back that far Russia is also a western country. So is Syria. Also you used the word "meme" which reduces your credibility to nearly nothing.
Quote from: saskganesh on September 05, 2009, 01:49:45 AM
well, there's two major tracks. one is the classical (romano-greek) and the other is middle eastern (jews [religion] and phoenicans [alphabet] and arabs [math and a lot of other useful stuff]).
Of course the Arabs were themselves syncretic. They've got an alphabet but their literature is heavily influenced by Persian examples, their mathematical genius (especially in astronomy) was a mix of Indian and Greek stuff (what we call Arabic numbers the Arabs call Indian numbers) and their philosophy was fundamentally Greek, especially Aristotle.
But they mixed what was Greek with influences from India and Persian much the same way.
Anyway, the answer is simple: Greeks were Philosophical and Creative, so they got more Great People, and cheaper theatres, libraries and universities. No wonder they were clever. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Martinus on September 05, 2009, 03:29:04 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 05, 2009, 02:18:00 AM
I view the Mediterranean civilization as having collapsed in the West a little after Rome fell but last longer in the east. Western civilization started on the rubble of the older one, and while it borrowed alot from the past it was distinctly different.
That's rather ignorant. The entire history of Western philosophy and ideology can be described as an argument between Aristotle and Plato.
Pretty much. But I would add one thing. After the fall of Rome western civilization pretty much retreated to the monasteries. From these came the future royal counsellors, ministers, intellectuals, academia founders that characterize in such a measure the intellectual Middle Ages. Monasteries had two roles: to preserve Christian literature and knowledge (the works of the great greek and roman theologians), plus to create areas of independence within a realm (the same reason the Egyptian monks invented monasticism in the 3rd century). Judging by these elements, I can't see Western Civilization as something different from the last three centuries of Roman rule, only a local adaptation.
Society was changed with the arrival of barbarians but the intellectual climate wasn't barbarian, there wasn't any attempt to adapt the old culture to the new warlords. Ironically, the rise of secular literature (the first signs of a true and distinct Western culture) can be directly linked to the imitation of Greek/Roman models, but done from the perspective of a city dweller rather than an isolated monastic community.
Quote from: Martinus on September 05, 2009, 12:40:46 PM
Anyway, the answer is simple: Greeks were Philosophical and Creative, so they got more Great People, and cheaper theatres, libraries and universities. No wonder they were clever. :rolleyes:
:lol:
Quote from: Martinus on September 05, 2009, 03:29:04 AM
That's rather ignorant. The entire history of Western philosophy and ideology can be described as an argument between Aristotle and Plato.
My old pol sci professor used to say that western philosophy is Plato and some footnotes.
I agree it was the spirit of competition and the ideas of Greece that made it great, but why did these arise in Greece and not elsewhere?
Olive tree cultivation is believed to have begun on Crete in Minoan times, and soon spread to the rest of Greece. Olive oil found many uses and soon became a very valueable commodity throughout the ancient mediterranean world. Homer referred to it as "liquid gold". The Greeks kept slaves to harvest and make the oil which was traded throughout the ancient world along extensive trade routes - giving the Greeks an excess of resources and plenty of time to spend on sports and philosophy.
Quote from: miglia on September 05, 2009, 04:21:11 PM
I agree it was the spirit of competition and the ideas of Greece that made it great, but why did these arise in Greece and not elsewhere?
As I said in my first post in this thread: a seafaring nation means more trade/xenophiliac than others; with limited resources (which gives more incentive to go out and bring it to Greece; and also breeds competition). And since you lack arable land, you don't have a feudal hereditary caste developing either, which means a greater social mobility.
Quote from: miglia on September 05, 2009, 04:21:11 PM
I agree it was the spirit of competition and the ideas of Greece that made it great, but why did these arise in Greece and not elsewhere?
Victor Hanson makes the argument (in Culture and Carnage?) that one advantage of The West (tm) was the lack of a powerful central government that enjoyed a monopoly on science and technology. His exemplar was Venetian canon casting and Ottoman crap, but I think it applies to Greeks vs. ROTW as well.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 06, 2009, 01:33:19 PM
Quote from: miglia on September 05, 2009, 04:21:11 PM
I agree it was the spirit of competition and the ideas of Greece that made it great, but why did these arise in Greece and not elsewhere?
Victor Hanson makes the argument (in Culture and Carnage?) that one advantage of The West (tm) was the lack of a powerful central government that enjoyed a monopoly on science and technology. His exemplar was Venetian canon casting and Ottoman crap, but I think it applies to Greeks vs. ROTW as well.
Yes, but this is all a consequence, not a cause.
How do all of you feel about questioning the extent to which the greeks were actually exceptional. Their cultural achievements were admired and preserved by the Romans, while other empires didn't have similar benefactors.
Quote from: Martinus on September 06, 2009, 03:12:10 PM
Yes, but this is all a consequence, not a cause.
A consequence of what?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 06, 2009, 03:39:41 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 06, 2009, 03:12:10 PM
Yes, but this is all a consequence, not a cause.
A consequence of what?
Geography and climate, imo. Though it is not a theory I have given a lot of thought. :P
Quote from: alfred russel on September 06, 2009, 03:25:37 PM
How do all of you feel about questioning the extent to which the greeks were actually exceptional. Their cultural achievements were admired and preserved by the Romans, while other empires didn't have similar benefactors.
I would say the Romans are overrated, not the Greeks. The Roman rule destroyed much of the originality of the Greek culture: look at the banquet in "Satyricon": nobody discusses Plato, Homer or other original thinkers; the rich roman patrons are obsessed with mediocre stories, copies of famous sculptures and philosophical discussions that would have made Thales laugh his ass off... nobody in Rome would invest money and patronage for true genius.
The greek great moment was arguably the Hellenistic period. The Roman one is the consummerist age.
What's really weird is that we have people who aren't even part of western civilization going on about it.
Quote from: Alexandru H. on September 06, 2009, 03:41:11 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on September 06, 2009, 03:25:37 PM
How do all of you feel about questioning the extent to which the greeks were actually exceptional. Their cultural achievements were admired and preserved by the Romans, while other empires didn't have similar benefactors.
I would say the Romans are overrated, not the Greeks. The Roman rule destroyed much of the originality of the Greek culture: look at the banquet in "Satyricon": nobody discusses Plato, Homer or other original thinkers; the rich roman patrons are obsessed with mediocre stories, copies of famous sculptures and philosophical discussions that would have made Thales laugh his ass off... nobody in Rome would invest money and patronage for true genius.
The greek great moment was arguably the Hellenistic period. The Roman one is the consummerist age.
Have you taken a survey of current western civilization? Titanic is the film that has accumulated the most awards, Tom Clancy writes best sellers, and Britney Spears is among the top musical performers.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 06, 2009, 03:56:40 PM
What's really weird is that we have people who aren't even part of western civilization going on about it.
Since your theory says Western Civilization is something else than the Greek-Roman one, it's clear greeks aren't your intellectual forefathers. I would think the semi-naked celt is a much better ancestor.
Quote from: alfred russel on September 06, 2009, 04:00:53 PM
Quote from: Alexandru H. on September 06, 2009, 03:41:11 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on September 06, 2009, 03:25:37 PM
How do all of you feel about questioning the extent to which the greeks were actually exceptional. Their cultural achievements were admired and preserved by the Romans, while other empires didn't have similar benefactors.
I would say the Romans are overrated, not the Greeks. The Roman rule destroyed much of the originality of the Greek culture: look at the banquet in "Satyricon": nobody discusses Plato, Homer or other original thinkers; the rich roman patrons are obsessed with mediocre stories, copies of famous sculptures and philosophical discussions that would have made Thales laugh his ass off... nobody in Rome would invest money and patronage for true genius.
The greek great moment was arguably the Hellenistic period. The Roman one is the consummerist age.
Have you taken a survey of current western civilization? Titanic is the film that has accumulated the most awards, Tom Clancy writes best sellers, and Britney Spears is among the top musical performers.
We are the Modern Romans... :)
Are you still a religious nut or have you gone back to anarchist.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 06, 2009, 04:43:25 PM
Are you still a religious nut or have you gone back to anarchist.
I'm a bit of both.
Just like Tolstoi. ;)
Paid the nerds to do it for them.