What is the West? Is Greece part of the West?

[crazy canuck]

My point was why should we assume that we are more "Greek", the the Greeks are?  If ancient Greece was indeed the cradle of Western culture, why is only Western Europe worthy to be heirs of this intellectual heritage?  Why not other areas that Greece influence like Egypt, or Bulgaria, or Syria or even Greece itself?

Your answer is probably found by looking at who ruled Bulgaria, Syria and Greece itself during the time Europe started making great strides.  The answer to your question is probably the same as the answer to the question of why a rather advanced Islamic society came to be dominated by what had been a rather rude and backward Europe.

But I dont see what that answer has to do with the impact of the Greek classics on modern western thought.

[Sheilbh]

You're wrong on the Renaissance.  They didn't feel inferior.  The Medieval world felt inferior, in some ways, but one of the marks of the Renaissance is a certain intellectual self-confidence.  For example Petrarch wrote a series of letters to Cicero, as a friend.  He was not only equal to, but corresponding with, the Classical world.  That sort of intimacy is unimaginable in the Medieval period.

Similarly you have to remember that the 'Renaissance' and the 'dark middle ages' are both Renaissance concepts.  I actually think they both come from Petrarch, but I could be wrong.  This was how they defined themselves.  Their narrative of history was of a debased, dark age between the classical world and their rebirth.  It was only in their era that Europe was moving from darkness into light and was beginning to equal and in some ways surpass the achievements of the ancients - this is especially reflected in the visual arts.  Of course all of this is dubious but it's how the Renaissance saw itself and described itself to us.

An example of this self-confidence is the rash of new translations and editions of the Bible that emerge or are being worked on in the Renaissance.  With that translation work you have the start of Biblical criticism which, again, starts from an assumption of equality rather than the inferiority you've suggested.

The Greeks matter to the Renaissance.  Plato is rediscovered, I think the literature becomes available for the first time too.  But, a lot of Renaissance thought is actually far more Roman.  The Medieval schoolsmen were far more exclusively interested in Aristotle and Arabic interpretations of certain Greeks.

[crazy canuck]

How does what you said make me wrong?  Didnt you just confirm what I said?

Who ruled Greece Bulgaria and Syria while Europe was making its transition to and going through the Renaissance?

[Razgovory]

I don't think they saw themselves as equal to ancient Greece.  People were still arguing that they could never surpass the classical age as late as the 18th century.  See Swift's Battle of the Books.

[Sheilbh]

You posted while I was writing that.  I was responding to Raz.

As I've said I think the West's a pretty modern concept that's meant and means different things at different times.

[Razgovory]

My point was why should we assume that we are more "Greek", the the Greeks are?  If ancient Greece was indeed the cradle of Western culture, why is only Western Europe worthy to be heirs of this intellectual heritage?  Why not other areas that Greece influence like Egypt, or Bulgaria, or Syria or even Greece itself?

Your answer is probably found by looking at who ruled Bulgaria, Syria and Greece itself during the time Europe started making great strides.  The answer to your question is probably the same as the answer to the question of why a rather advanced Islamic society came to be dominated by what had been a rather rude and backward Europe.

But I dont see what that answer has to do with the impact of the Greek classics on modern western thought.

Valmy was talking about the great schizim, so this is before Europe leaped ahead.  My post was addressing his statement.  I ask you though, why is Islamic society not the heir to Greece but Western Europe is?

[Sheilbh]

I don't think they saw themselves as equal to ancient Greece.  People were still arguing that they could never surpass the classical age as late as the 18th century.  See Swift's Battle of the Books.

What do you think's suggested by the Battle of the Books?

[PDH]

Valmy was talking about the great schizim, so this is before Europe leaped ahead.  My post was addressing his statement.  I ask you though, why is Islamic society not the heir to Greece but Western Europe is?

That is another whole kettle of philosophers.  The tradition of Islamic scholarship had specific trouble with some/much of the ancients, bringing the thought in line with the religion.  Attempts to do so were seen as (at least) problematic or (at worst) heretical.

The High Middle Ages saw syncretism of the (rediscovered) ancient greek philosophy within Christian thought, laying the scholastic groundwork for greater growth.

The Christians saw ancient greek works as a foundation, the Muslims saw it as important but not always within the realm of accepted thought.

[Razgovory]

I don't think they saw themselves as equal to ancient Greece.  People were still arguing that they could never surpass the classical age as late as the 18th century.  See Swift's Battle of the Books.

What do you think's suggested by the Battle of the Books?

That there were people who still believe that the modern era couldn't compete with the classical in terms of quality of ideas.  Otherwise, why write a satire attacking this position?

[Razgovory]

Valmy was talking about the great schizim, so this is before Europe leaped ahead.  My post was addressing his statement.  I ask you though, why is Islamic society not the heir to Greece but Western Europe is?

That is another whole kettle of philosophers.  The tradition of Islamic scholarship had specific trouble with some/much of the ancients, bringing the thought in line with the religion.  Attempts to do so were seen as (at least) problematic or (at worst) heretical.

The High Middle Ages saw syncretism of the (rediscovered) ancient greek philosophy within Christian thought, laying the scholastic groundwork for greater growth.

The Christians saw ancient greek works as a foundation, the Muslims saw it as important but not always within the realm of accepted thought.

Eh, I think you misunderstand how Muslims viewed the world.  They didn't recognize people prior to Mohamed as "pagan", in the same way as Christians did.  People who lived prior to Mohamed were often considered good Muslims as well.  They simply didn't have access to the words of the final prophet.  Christians developed a similar idea for righteous pagans and the like.  People like Moses and Socrates still went to Hell, but it was a nicer part of Hell.

[PDH]

Eh, I think you misunderstand how Muslims viewed the world.  They didn't recognize people prior to Mohamed as "pagan", in the same way as Christians did.  People who lived prior to Mohamed were often considered good Muslims as well.  They simply didn't have access to the words of the final prophet.  Christians developed a similar idea for righteous pagans and the like.  People like Moses and Socrates still went to Hell, but it was a nicer part of Hell.

Eh, I think you haven't read about various Muslim scholars who attempted to bring Aristotle into the Islamic canon in the time period around 1000 CE and who were denounced as anti-Islamic, forced to recant or killed.  They saved the works of Aristotle, but they could not base much new thought on him after this period because of Muslim retrenchments and attacks against too worldly scholars.

My point was that the Greek philosophy was increasingly seen as a not a proper foundation in the Muslim world.

[Razgovory]

This Muslim view on their pre-Muslim ancestors is something that I read about from other Muslims.  I found it strange, but didn't question it.  The Christian West tended to strip the religious significance from the ancient Greek authors (and much of ancient Greek and Roman culture all together).  It gave an impression of secularism that I don't think was actually there.  For instance, much of Greek moral philosophy arose to solve perceived deficiencies in the Greek religious practices.

[Sheilbh]

That there were people who still believe that the modern era couldn't compete with the classical in terms of quality of ideas.  Otherwise, why write a satire attacking this position?

I don't think it attacks it.  It's an inconclusive, mock-epic I think the satire is on the pointlessness of the argument and intellectual dispute at all. 

The argument existed  and was possibly even popular (I think it was very furiously held in France) but that doesn't mean a great deal.  Although I do think it was that they hadn't surpassed the ancients, not that they never could.

What I mean is that in the Renaissance you have the idea that they're picking up where the ancients left off and they do so on their own terms.  So you have the slow triumph of the vernacular as a language worthy of poetry, philosophy and thought as opposed to just entertainment.  That's a shift from the Medieval.  But you also have a growth in Classical learning.  Greek returns in the Renaissance to a far greater degree, so scholars are engaging with Classical texts in their own language rather than first or second hand in Latin from Arabic and so on.  Which changes the dynamic, there's less distance.  The Renaissance scholar is in a far greater position to actually the Classics.

This shift is seen in a few places.  The most obvious is that scientific knowledge does surpass the Ancients.  The Ptolemaic system is overturned.  The Americas are discovered.  Euclid's mathematics are updated and his optics hugely altered.  Similarly all over the Christian world errors are discovered in the translations of the Bible and the lazy assumptions, based on deference, made by the Medievals.  The Renaissance can correct these errors, they can see the Ancients were not infallible and the engage with them as equals.

But the self-confidence is also reflected in things like poetry.  Paradise Lost is an attempt to surpass Homer.  Milton is writing an English poem that will meet the achievements of a Classical epic but also has the divine truth of Christianity which makes the Renaissance greater than the Classical world.  There is none of the deference to the Classics that previously existed.  Homer was a great poet, Milton will be a great poet.  More generally you see this with the way young poets announce themselves, they often model their work on Classical writers with the intention of surpassing them and announcing themselves as successors.  Again this is best seen with Milton and 'Lycidas'.

But also translations are recognised as sometimes surpassing the original.  Dyden's translation of Virgil was often praised as better than Virgil himself. 

So the argument does exist during the Renaissance that actually they weren't equal to the Classical world but I think it's a pseudo-intellectual affectation.  That, actually, from Petrarch to Swift there's an, until then, unparalleled intellectual intimacy and feeling of closeness between the Renaissance and Classical mind.

[Valmy]

This Muslim view on their pre-Muslim ancestors is something that I read about from other Muslims.  I found it strange, but didn't question it.  The Christian West tended to strip the religious significance from the ancient Greek authors (and much of ancient Greek and Roman culture all together).  It gave an impression of secularism that I don't think was actually there.  For instance, much of Greek moral philosophy arose to solve perceived deficiencies in the Greek religious practices.

But the Christianity the Christian west developed was already overwhelmingly influenced by those philosophers, given the Greeks themselves developed early Christianity.  So when you read Greek Philosophers you see ideas from Christianity all over the place.  Greek moral philosophy is a good example.

[crazy canuck]

You posted while I was writing that.  I was responding to Raz.

Thats what I get for jumping into the middle of a thread.  My apologies.