Macedonian.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gemenii XIII
If you would be so kind as you actually read the information I have presented previously in this thread, then get back to me - you might be able to have enough understanding to comment. :bow:
Printable View
Macedonian.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gemenii XIII
If you would be so kind as you actually read the information I have presented previously in this thread, then get back to me - you might be able to have enough understanding to comment. :bow:
That the Americans won at Bunker Hill!
As far as Alexander is concerned: untill upon his time (actually his fathers breaking into the scene), greek ppl were divided into the following geographical categories:
Greeks from Sparta, Athens and Thebes. These were considered more sophisticated than the others. Ancient scipts refer to them much more often.
Greeks from the aegean islands (lesbos, chios, crete etc.) and the western shores of asia minor. Also very sophisticated, but since they were away from Athens (the intellectuall center of ancient greece) and also under the direct or indirect control of the Persian empire they are less often refered to.
Greeks from the western part of the Meditterenean, including Sicily, South Italy (Greca Magna) and the south costs of modern day France (Marsaile was a greek colony).
Greeks from Macedonia, Epirus and Thrace. These were thought to be quite backward and not so civilised by the Southern Greeks. Especially the Thracians. The Epirotes were quite poor and never really played an important role in greek history, as far as the start of the Peloponisian war. Macedonians were in a better position and they are refered by athenian writters. In particular, Alexander's great-grandfather (also Alexander) had sent a message to the Southern Greeks before the Battle of Marathon or Plataia (don't remember) apologising for having a treatie with the enemy and informing the leaders of the greek army of the Persian plans. In his letter he refers to himself as a "greek" and to the southerns as "brothers" asking an apology for having to have a treaty with the enemy.
As far as Demosthenes goes, he hated Philip and the macedonians, cause they were in war with athens. He wrote several scripts for the athenians called "Against Philip". The southerns generally didn't hold their northern neighboors in high esteem, as they were a bit more "tribal" than them, living in little scattered villages, instead of the southern cities. Something like the difference of the civilised East the "wild west" of USA 150 years ago.
In addition, the year alexander was born, Philips chariot won the olympics. Only greeks were allowed to take part in the games which is evidence macedonians were greeks. By the way, romans also took part once in the olympic games, but at that time greece was almost a protectorate of rome, so it wasn't really their call, while at the time philips chariot won, he was far from being the rulling head of greece.
As far as Alex being a tyrranic despot, he performed much less atrocities against the defeated side than most other emperors in the history of humanity. He tried to unite the persian and greek cultures. He left most persian satraps governing their lands. He only ordered the burning of the Persepolis palace, i don't know why, but he may had his reasons. Romans were much more tyrranic in their behavior towards conquered ppl, i mean they enslaved entire populations, almost exterminating the celts. Of course let's not forget he conquered the greatest empire the world had seen in few years. No other person in the world history can go near that. Even Julious Ceaser conquered Gaul and some of Belgium, Spain and Egypt. Now, don't you think that, that amount of success would naturaly make someone "despotic" or "tyrranic"? Yet, i believe, alexander although the most successfull conqueror of all times, he showed the most human face of all emperors. In any case, one should be judged taking in mind the era he lived. Of course if you advocate war is a crime, i'm with you 100%. Alexander took to being a god, after his visit in Egypt. Faraoes were thought to be gods and since he had himself proclaimed one it was a bit "naturall" to claim he was a god as well. Also, his family tree, the Argeads, tracked their roots from Achileas and Hephfastos, a semi god and a god respectively. The theme of great individuals (kings usually) being relatives of gods is a common one in greek mythology.
About the 300 Spartans, they weren't 300. Th troops defending Thermopylae were considerably more, like 5,000. The Thebeans didn't play an active role in the defence, as they had already a truce with persia and the other greeks didn't trust them. In the last stand, along with the 300 Spartans were 700 Thespians. I'm not quite sure, but they managed to escape, since they had been ordered to rearguard the Spartans from the encyrcling troops. However the Immortals didn't bother with them, as what mattered was to free the passage. The important thing about the Spartans was that the other greeks who sent forces to help them did it only because the Spartans were there. Hadn't they gone to the thermopylae defence, neither would the others. Btw, hold no questions on their value as warriors. In his history of the Pelloponisian war, Donald Keagan, who is considered one of the best proffessors in that era, talks about 6,000 to athenian troops that were sent to capture the 400 spartans (not all of the which were actuall spartans) in the island of Sfactiria.
It is very interesting - people don't accept the numbers in Termo' (300 etc') , and with good reasons , but they accept anything that was told about Alexander , that is , anything although it was written 300 to 500 years after hie time .
Hhhhmmmmm ~:eek:
Well you've a point there caesar. Altough i don't know much about Alexander to get in further discussion, i can say this, he believed he was a god, so where is the human face. No emperor governs outside despotism, it's an universal caracteristic of al monarcs, that's why they stand in power (or like Weber said because charisma too, but there are no perfect models, the charismatic rules is an ideal model nothing more). When i said that (if my is what you readed) i was talking from a moral point of view. If you think you're superior to everybody, then for that alone you don't treat the others with respect and decency. But don't take me wrong, Alexander was not the only one, and what he did was necessary to stay in power. Now was it necessary to kill Aristoteles nephew or everyone that goes against his ideas? Especially the ones that try to persuade him that he's not god. One fact is certain he was by definition a despot, a tiran.
thanks for that amazon77, but he was still ethnically not a Greek
nothing you wrote depicted him as such besides assuming that since the different peoples in the Balkans were heavily influenced by the Greeks to the south that they were all Greek. Macedonians in Alexanders army always were jealous about his infatuation with the Greek culture - and later the Greeks were perturbed that he began to enjoy the Eastern culture more than their Hellenism. That's hilarious that you discount Demosthenes' comments that Peter was not Greek at all as simply hate towards him and so it must be false; rather convenient. I've had this argument with a number of people - the long and the short of is that Alexander didn't have Greek parents and wasn't raised in a Greek society. That makes me believe he wasn't Greek. If you disagree with what I've said you probably also dont' believe that Palestine is a nation.
But only 300 Spartans at Thermopylae is not an error in the historical sources, but simply popular modern misconception. No ancient historian (either period like Herodotus, or the later writers like Ephorus, Diodorus or even people like Pausanias) suggests that there were only the Spartans. While Herodotus does note an inscription by Simonides to just the 300 Spartans at Thermopylae, he first notes one to all 4000 Greeks as well. So it’s is not a case of rejecting the ancient evidence in one case and accepting it in the other; but in your first instance Thermopylae it’s rejecting modern mistakes.Quote:
It is very interesting - people don't accept the numbers in Termo' (300 etc') , and with good reasons , but they accept anything that was told about Alexander , that is , anything although it was written 300 to 500 years after hie time .
Hhhhmmmmm
In defining Alexander's ethnicity, shall be define who are the ancient Greeks first?
It's easy to say that since Alexander did not live in a society that makes up "Greece proper" that makes him not a Greek.
It's also easy to say that since Macedonia was a Greek state, even if backwards, he's naturally a Greek.
First of all, this stupid modern conflict is a tug-o-war between two, shall I say, ignorant groups of people should be put out of this discussion completely. Both modern Greece and modern Macedonia have equal (which means...little :P ) claim to Alexander the Great's heritage. Neither are pureblood (according to Harry Potter's definition ;p)people and both are greatly influenced by the passage of time of just about 2300+ years, a lot of generations. I don't really understand why can't BOTH nations worship him if they so wishes...
Now, as we know, the Greeks are a group of varied people. The Achaeans, which Athens and some Asia Minor cities claimed to be, were the rulers and people of ancient Mycenae. According to one of the many legends they came from the direction "of the sea", probably are Hyksos migrating from Egypt. So they won't have much influence in Macedonia when it comes to ethnicity.
However, many other peoples that later makes up classical Greeks come from the north - the direction of Macedonia, and further up - and I think they were known as the Dorians. Some theories (could be outdated) state that the Dorians makes up the majority of Spartans (proper Spartans, at least, not their Helots), Thebans, and Peloponnesia as a whole.
Naturally there will be a mix. Though if we decide that the Dorians are also the ancient Greeks, whether they actually migrate that far south or not, then ancient Macedonia would most likely classify as a Greek state, since they will certainly have a lot of Doric influence in their blood...literally.
However, this does not take into account the Illyrian, Epiriot (probably also Doric), and Thracian influence in the ethnicity of Macedonia.
Is he a Greek or not it depends on your point of view.
Well, the Spartans spoke a Doric dialect, and since they had long been subjecting the local (Ionic speaking) peoples then it is highly likely that they were Dorians. Also Dorians differed from the Ionians by being rather darker in complexion and hair. (Achaeans are often called Ionians)
Now that conflicts with the often blond Macedonians, but it is most often assumed that the Dorians came from about Macedonia and Thessaly, possibly even Thrace.
Because Alexander and the rest of the nobility often were blonde does not make that a major part of the Macedonian heritage. One should remember that the Macedonian noble families had to marry with Epirote, Illyrian or Thracian nobles to stay at peace with them. So it is not unlikely that the Thracians blondness took over a few families. But that does not make the Macedonians Thracian.
[QUOTE=AntiochusIII]
First of all, this stupid modern conflict is a tug-o-war between two, shall I say, ignorant groups of people should be put out of this discussion completely. Both modern Greece and modern Macedonia have equal (which means...little :P ) claim to Alexander the Great's heritage
You said that , not me . you should expect a MGA (Massive Greeks Attack) ~D ~D ~D , for them , to say such a thing is sacrilegious... ~;) ~;) ~;)
[QUOTE=caesar44]Quote:
Originally Posted by AntiochusIII
Bah, phalanx are pathetic on offensive against those who know how.Quote:
Originally Posted by AntiochusIII
Just don't let them catch me and shoot them down! ~D
My Sarmatians, aim your bows! :charge:
Edit: it IS stupid though, don't you think? I mean, what's the problem if two nations worship...oh the horror...the same hero?
Agreed , it is , how to say it...meaningless , "he was Greek...he was Macedonian..." what is the point ? the Greeks and "Macedonians" of the modern era are not the Greeks and Macedonians of antiquity (Oh my god... ~;) )
(I can't edit , damn) Bty , why Antiochus III ? you know , he lost it in 190... ~;)
Somebody already taken Seleucus/Seleucos I Nicator, aren't they? ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by caesar44
So I choose his best successor instead. I was expecting much fun from the Seleucids and I did :) ... Unfortunately the best mods right now (RTR, EB) are historically accurate and that means an oversized (no blame to the modders, all to Seleucus' campaign into the east...duh) empire to rule from the start. Not fun :(
Luckily I heard something about some people already gathering to make an add-on for EB for the age of Marius, and the Seleucids are still alive (and small enough to be fun!) ~:)
You say that neither the Macedonians nor the Greeks have a full ability to claim him as 100% their own cultural hero; that's true. However, the Macedonians have a much more viable argument than the Greeks. To claim Alexander at all for the Greeks would be like centuries from now people saying that Wayne Gretzky was an American hockey hero.Quote:
Originally Posted by AntiochusIII
My favorite myth:
That the cause of the American Civil War was not slavery, but instead "State's Rights." This one is still taught as if it were true...
#1 Reason given to support this? That the North did not invade to end slavery, it was a battle over State's Rights.
Rebuttal: That is very much true, but the North was not the initiator of the conflict. The South was, so to find the cause you must look at what motivated the South, not what drove the North. (The North wanted to preserve the Union primarily, and secession was unacceptable for that. The North had compromised on slavery many times. When war started, the only way to preserve the Union was to conquer the South, but the North was not the aggressor in *initiating* the war.) The South could not accept Lincoln's election and the stated aim to prevent slavery from being introduced into the new territories. That prompted secession (without waiting to see if they could defeat his initiative once he took office.) Then the South started seizing Federal property and attacked Fort Sumter.
Further Reasoning that Has Convinced me that Slavery was THE Cause:
1. The test for the myth? Name any reason given for justifying secession, then ask yourself: was this sufficient reason for the South to seceed? Only one will pass the criteria: slavery.
2. The institution of slavery had transformed the South's culture. The whole sense of being Southern had its root in slavery. It was an economic division, *even in the South.* There were quite a few Unionists in the South, but not in sufficient numbers to prevent majorities from voting secession. The Unionist strongholds were areas that did not have much slavery.
3. The belief in racial superiority to justify slavery had extended into a belief in fundamental superiority over "Northerners." I've read several statements to the effect that slavery allowed Southerners to be more "enlightened" since they did not have to do the toughest labor. This sort of aristocracy was felt superior than the "shopkeepers and tinkerers" of the North, not to mention the menial industrial laborers.
4. There was little "Northern tyranny" to speak of before the war (a protectionist *import* tax, a tariff that was lower than most other nations of the time and applied to both North and South.) However, the South felt that it should be able to maintain over representation in govt., not just the 3/5th's representation added for slaves, but also a balance in the Sentate by extending slavery. They simply could not accept that slave states should be represented by their true numbers. Therefore, they could not accept the basic precepts of majority representation.
I wouldn't necessarily call that a myth.Quote:
That the Americans won at Bunker Hill!
Technically the British did win the battle since they took the redoubt, but it was a phyrric victory at best. The British were repulsed twice and finally only took the hill after the rebel ammunition was spent, and at a cost of over 1,000 casualties, about 40% of the attacking force, compared to only about 400 casualties among the rebels. Casualties among the British officers in particular were high, with every officer on General Howe's staff either wounded or killed. General Clinton remarked after the battle, "A few more such victories would have surely put an end to British dominion in America."
The British also only achieved their immediate objective, which was seizing the rebel redoubt on Breed's Hill. Their ultimate objective was to lift the rebel siege on Boston. The losses suffered in the battle of Bunker Hill prevented the British from accomplishing that. They won the battle but lost the campaign.
It could be said that Bunker Hill was an important moral victory for the rebels as well. Had the British simply rolled over them the rebellion may have ended right there. The fact that they did repulse the British twice and caused such heavy casualties among the redcoats hardened the resolve of the rebels...it gave them hope that they could actually take on the British Empire and win.
Agreed, Bunker Hill was a Pyrrhic victory for the British. The British acheived a tactical victory but the price they paid was too high and both sides knew it. So from a strategic standpoint it was a defeat as it would have negative consequences for the campaign. It is no myth to claim it as a victory for the Americans.
These were not backwoodsmen with excellent rifles. Instead they were raw militia without bayonets. This meant that the British had only to reach the redoubt and the battle was over, yet it took them three ties. The militia were actually running out of ammunition at the end.
This is a joke! Alexander's teacher was Aristotle and his favourite book was Homer' s Heliade! He was considering himself as the champion of Greeks against Persia, the avenger of the persian invasions! He was Greek down to his bones! You take the word of an Athenian politician as The Ultimate Truth and deny everything else! Since you like ancient greek politicians so much, here is what Isokrates, an enemy of Demosthenes said: Greek is everyone who has greek education . Why not take his word as The Truth?Quote:
Originally Posted by Colovion
Myth: That very few Southerners at the time of secession owned slaves and therefore slavery was not the major reason for secession.
Fact: The 1860 Census reveals that there were 5.42 people per household on average in the 11 seceeding states (slaves were not included in the household count.) Only one slaveholder was listed per household. There were 317,000 slaveholders, so the family population that had slaves was 1.72 million out of 5.58 million total. This is 30+% of the population.
I came across the same result (30+%) quoted by Southern secessionists of the time also. Keep in mind that these were the percent of the population that could *afford* slaves at the time. More would have had them if they had sufficient means or need.
Slaveholding was regional, and slaves were uncommon in rugged areas where planting was not the primary activity (Ozarks, Western Virginia, East Tennessee, Northern Georgia, etc.) Those areas had a neutral or Unionist sentiment.
Worst myths ever: That the invention of civilization led to more compassion and less violence among humans, rather than the opposite. That the human sacrifice etc. of early civilizations were examples of uncivilized behavior, when in reality it happened in the most civilized societies of it's time, and the contemporary uncivilized nomads were the peaceful ones.
Alexander son of Phillip
Macedonian by birth, possessed of an Athenian education, he fought as a cavalryman in the style of Thessaly but commanded an army famed for its super-hoplites before whom none could stand.
Peninsular Greeks of the era apparently viewed the Macedonians and Thracians the way Tudor Englishmen viewed the Scots -- barely civilized. Phillip's system of warfare ensured that the Macedonians emerged as the dominant political group in the Southern Balkans.
Most of Western Civilization since Alexander has been taught to think of him as the ultimate super-warrior and hero, and as the man who spread hellenic culture far and wide -- and yes, most kids still think of him as Greek, though the ethnic purists of his own era probably did not.
Alexander's greek tutor was a man with an ax to grind against Athens in general and the platonic academy in particular. Did he teach Alexander to love Greek culture or did Alexander simply avail himself of the useful tools of rhetoric and logic to further his own ends.
Upon conquering the largest empire of the world (at least in geography if not in population), he was quick enough to adopt the king as deity trappings of the East, adopted the empire-running aparatus of Persia rather than any Grecian format, and was even experimenting with the phalanx (making each block of troops 50% percent archer in content was actively being considered/tested when he died).
Some Hellenic culture -- particularly the combat portions -- spread throughout his empire and was maintained by the successors. The oriental style of government, power struggles, and bureacracy came to characterize this "greek" successorship far more than the logic driven analytical approach bequeathed us by Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Euripides and the like. The most successful of the successors -- Ptolemy -- went so far as to become an Egyptian pharoah and found a new dynasty -- becoming Ra manifest like the wearers of the two crowns before him. From this point forward, Greece becomes more and more oriental in character, and the Greece of antiquity is preserved more and more in Rome and less and less in Athens. (Some good insight on the "oriental" character of Greece can be found in the book "Balkan Ghosts")
Ultimately, Alexander is the last of the truly Homeric heroes. His name and personal deeds outshine his inadequacies as a ruler and make all of his story seem "larger than life." How much of it is outright fiction propagated by the successors to add stature to their own efforts? I doubt anyone can tell.
Phillip defeated Greece and Alexander completed that conquest. Alexander conquered Persia and the Middle East. After his death, the Persian/mid-eastern culture took back control of the whole region as well as Greece -- though it took a while.
Seamus
Seamus Fermanagh
Actually you could carry the negative effects of Alexander importation of oriental style rule a bit farther, since the Roman Empire essentially succumbed to it as well.
Greece didn’t go all that quietly. Athens clung fairly tenaciously to her democracy for more than half a century after loosing the Lamian War, and Rhodes certainly deserves notice, it remained an independent polis democracy (and power to be reckoned with) till at least the first century BC.
Good post Red Harvest. Sort of related to that...Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
The Secession Declarations of several of the Confederate states cite the slavery issue as the primary cause for the break with the Union. The notion that the American Civil War was over States Rights vs. the rights of the Federal gov't rather than slavery is only half true. It may have been over states' rights...but a state's right to do what? Determine for itself whether or not slavery was legal within that state, without Federal interference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by caesar44
why dont you try read actuall books instead of wikipedia and googling before you assume the big shot historian attitude? Where is your bibliography for all the stuff you are writing? Your empathy is endless. The ''Macedonians'' you reffer are slavs staying in the area since Byzantine or eastern roman empire era if you preffer. The greeks are not the one of antiquity and bla bla... i dont know you think anyone that doest live in an abandoned island staying pure blooded? Nevertheless Greeks have certain ''racial'' characteristics still today maybe much more than other ancient peoples like Romans for instance.
People change but some basic features still remains. You wont find many people taller than 1,80 or open eye colors. And what we think as blond is light brownish color. Red simply almost does not exist. There are many other features but some things changed also we dont live in iceland you know.
I think this purity thing is tricky and rediculus and even more when an american guy refferes to it. Themistokles the greatest athenian general had thracian mother and propably etaira that made him less greek? Education collective traditional values and mentality makes somebody part of a nation more than dna. Jannisaries were Greek childrean in a big part taken from their families during childhood and brainwashed in fanatic Muslim warriors. They had no contact with greek mentality should they be considered greeks?
By the way i can trace my family line till 1530 and have clues for earlier times. My grand grand grand grand grand grand grandfather's sword is hanging on the wall of the family house in my grandpa's village. How about you?
Bits of family history stretching back on either side to when/why they "hopped the pond." That's probably about average by yank standards.
As to Macedonia v. Greece, while the folks on this site have no problem figuring it out, many (most?) of my countrymen -- even some of the ones who served there -- couldn't find it on a map.
Heavens to mergatroids but I hate ignorance.
SEAMUS
That's not an historical myth that's your wrong perspective on society function towards civilization. You're ignoring tons of science work from Locke, Hobbes and mostly Rousseau.Quote:
Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix
The nomads were violent, were uncivilized (what a paradox) and were obstuctring evolution. I'm not justifing it from a moral point of view, but history doesn't have place for morality. Civilization was on the career and the irrational old society had to been removed.
The compassion is inherent to human nature, you don't need civilization to achieve it. And if you look at the evolution and rationality that civilization (that btw is part of evolution) brought, you will surely change your mind, unless you wanted to be sacrificed every time that some ignorant people believes that the sun will not rise again.
Violence is inherent to all life forms (the same Universe was created in violence, as we know violence), it is necessary for change and evolution many times. So the violence is just another result of nature, the best weapon against nature that we have is evolution, the separation from nature, and therefore rational tought is necessary to end all this that you seem to dislike.
That's my point - the human sacrifice is civilized, because it happened in civilization, not in a pre-civilization society. And the nomads I'm speaking of refer to early ancient period nomads. After that, those nomads got more civilized, i.e. violent and barbaric, and started incorporating human sacrifice etc. too. The rationalism of civilization is actually a lot smaller than most people think. Today's society and most others are driven mostly be fear, fears that are often very irrational, including fear of the sun not rising again. Fear and dogmatic thinking - because it would be nice you could plead for mercy and safety from nature like if nature hade a soul, you invent human sacrifice, etc. The rationalism is rather a reaction against civilization IMO. Civilization in itself is to partly apply rationalism but mostly stick to instincts, which aren't adapted to the changed environment caused by civilization.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
The violence is a result of instincts ordering violence, but most instincts react directly on the surroundings. One can easily prove that this is the case by thinking about how good instincts would be if they didn't read indata from the surroundings. This reading and interpretation isn't perfect and rational, but based on factors that coincided in nature. When environment changes, certain combinations of environment factors will send signals to commit actions, even though it isn't rational. (This phenomenon can easily be proved btw) That means many actions will be committed even when there's no danger. Violence had a function in nature, otherwise there wouldn't be instincts creating violence. But all research proves it was very limited - much more limited than civilization's violence. And more importantly - most of it could be avoided, as it was status and sexual ranking violence. Surrendering would not mean death, but only a lower status. Civilization's violence, however, isn't possible to escape from if you dislike it and know you can't win the fights.
A second important factor that makes civilization violent is the fact that the system in itself is so unnatural that the ethical instincts we are born with can no longer instinctively analyze the different complicated situations that may occur, so that we will always have REASON for conflict, whereas in nature everybody knew their rights a lot better. When humans hunted mammoots it was necessary to maintain order and peace in a flock, losing to many hunters would make hunting impossible. Therefore, nature had evolved the instincts to function properly for reducing violence, as long as the natural society was kept.
A third factor that makes civilization violent is that there are totally unpsychological, real threats in it. The mere basic shape of civilization creates actual, real threats for several people, in a way that often makes it benefitial to use violence. At the moment the first wars had happened, everyone had reason to fear his neighbor, and had reason to strike first in order not be the first struck. The will to hold militarily strategical points and control resources like iron, oil etc. that would strengthen the military has become a goal which is enough to cause war. This means there are often wars even though there's no actual conflict that causes it, merely the will to be prepared in case the opponent that was attacked would want to start a war in the future. This and similar types of real threats created by civilization and society structure in itself, is a major factor causing violence.
I don't disagree with you about a 100 percent rational thinking is a good thing. The civilization is based on 1 percent rational thinking that enables the development of items and society structures that only work in the short term and in the long term lead to problems of different kinds, and often violence. The 100 percent rational thinking is the only way of realizing how to solve factors 1 to 3 listed above, and realize that they exist. What I'm saying is a myth is:
1. that statistically, violence decreased proportionally to amount of civilization.
2. that Genghis Khan and others would be violent because they were less civilized.
3. that civilization is the same thing as pure rational thinking.
Truth is:
1. The opposite is almost true, but it's not as simple as being directly proportionally. Civilization at least leads to more violence than pre-civilization society did.
2. On the contrary, Genghis Khan was among the most civilized of his time. Same thing for the Huns (who in reality according to my sources favored rational thought and atheism over religion).
3. Civilization is the usage of 99 percent instincts and 1 percent rational thinking, with the result that a society is created where the wrong instincts are used because we can't interpret the unnatural environment signals correctly.
Remember that violence can have a rational function in a few cases. That's why it's natural, but the increased violence is a result of civilization. The separation from nature is not a solution, on the contrary only a change of the human genes would be a solution, but that would mean no existing human today would be good enough. The problem is, when humans lose the strong urges, their strong will to struggle for anything at all, which is the root of violence, they lose their ability and will to survive. So the only way of ending human violence in civilization, would be to end all humans. The only way that works is to recreate something that to the instincts look nearly the same as nature, so that violence instincts aren't born all the time, but with safety system against incidents similar to those in the early civilization.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
BTW, civilization is a part of evolution, yes, but many paths of evolution lead to extreme destruction and mass death. The asteroid theories to explain all mass death events througout prehistory are ridiculous. The fact that evolution reaches tracks that can't possibly lead to survival is the only realistic explanation to this. And civilization, with it's violence, it's irrationalism in a society when rationalism is necessary to avoid destruction, and it's destruction of nature by pollution etc., WILL lead to the elimination of most or all humans. Remember that in nature we weren't depending on rationalism to work in order to avoid violence, here on the other hand, we are.
Even though I might praise the society before civilization, I thereby do not mean that society, in the form it had then, could be recreated. That is an impossibility. I just think it's interesting, there's a lot of interesting lessons for the future to learn from the process when civilization was created.
Civilization is the road to rational thinking, it doesn't mean that if you're in the road you have to be civilizated already. Rationalism is the source and the origin of civilization. I think that you're mistaking the meaning of civilization.Quote:
Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix
Agree. Though i really don't see the refutation here.Quote:
The violence is a result of instincts ordering violence, but most instincts react directly on the surroundings. One can easily prove that this is the case by thinking about how good instincts would be if they didn't read indata from the surroundings. This reading and interpretation isn't perfect and rational, but based on factors that coincided in nature. When environment changes, certain combinations of environment factors will send signals to commit actions, even though it isn't rational. (This phenomenon can easily be proved btw) That means many actions will be committed even when there's no danger. Violence had a function in nature, otherwise there wouldn't be instincts creating violence. But all research proves it was very limited - much more limited than civilization's violence. And more importantly - most of it could be avoided, as it was status and sexual ranking violence. Surrendering would not mean death, but only a lower status. Civilization's violence, however, isn't possible to escape from if you dislike it and know you can't win the fights.
Quote:
A second important factor that makes civilization violent is the fact that the system in itself is so unnatural that the ethical instincts we are born with can no longer instinctively analyze the different complicated situations that may occur, so that we will always have REASON for conflict, whereas in nature everybody knew their rights a lot better. When humans hunted mammoots it was necessary to maintain order and peace in a flock, losing to many hunters would make hunting impossible. Therefore, nature had evolved the instincts to function properly for reducing violence, as long as the natural society was kept.
That's your perspective on civilization. You'll see that Rousseau said something in the opposite way. Though i don't see why any human isn't capable of analyze the different complicated situations, when in fact our own evolved mind created the situations. We don't act instinctively at the original degree anymore, that's one of the effects of society and civilization. You also mention "ethical instincts" when infact the ethics comes from morality, wich is totally ideal construction of the human mind. The natural society is exactly the begining of civilization, unless you consider the "natural society" in a different way than I.
That will be the effect of nationality. But do you really think that the in natural state humans were less violent and didn't fought for territories, goods or even for a couple. Civilization doesn't create any threats those threats are created by human and by the wrong assumption of many that we're diffrent as humans.Quote:
A third factor that makes civilization violent is that there are totally unpsychological, real threats in it. The mere basic shape of civilization creates actual, real threats for several people, in a way that often makes it benefitial to use violence. At the moment the first wars had happened, everyone had reason to fear his neighbor, and had reason to strike first in order not be the first struck. The will to hold militarily strategical points and control resources like iron, oil etc. that would strengthen the military has become a goal which is enough to cause war. This means there are often wars even though there's no actual conflict that causes it, merely the will to be prepared in case the opponent that was attacked would want to start a war in the future. This and similar types of real threats created by civilization and society structure in itself, is a major factor causing violence.
Demonstrate point 1. As far as what the point 2 states, the mongols were nomads and Genghis Khan was uncivilized because he was a violent irrational man. You're correct in the 3, but i already answered to that.Quote:
I don't disagree with you about a 100 percent rational thinking is a good thing. The civilization is based on 1 percent rational thinking that enables the development of items and society structures that only work in the short term and in the long term lead to problems of different kinds, and often violence. The 100 percent rational thinking is the only way of realizing how to solve factors 1 to 3 listed above, and realize that they exist. What I'm saying is a myth is:
1. that statistically, violence decreased proportionally to amount of civilization.
2. that Genghis Khan and others would be violent because they were less civilized.
3. that civilization is the same thing as pure rational thinking.
1. Again demonstrate (though it will be really difficult because we've no empirical proof of the times that you're talking about, so it's imposible to talk about statistics).2 That doesn't make him civilized, and the Huns where not Atheist, they simply didn't care about religion, just asimilated the first that fitted their nessecities.3. Arbitrary numbers. Again you're assuming that the mind (the brain work that creates ideas) is inferior to instincs, when we already erased or decreased much of them.Quote:
Truth is:
1. The opposite is almost true, but it's not as simple as being directly proportionally. Civilization at least leads to more violence than pre-civilization society did.
2. On the contrary, Genghis Khan was among the most civilized of his time. Same thing for the Huns (who in reality according to my sources favored rational thought and atheism over religion).
3. Civilization is the usage of 99 percent instincts and 1 percent rational thinking, with the result that a society is created where the wrong instincts are used because we can't interpret the unnatural environment signals correctly.
Again assuming that the instincs are superior to the mind. Even materially you'll be wrong because all the day i ignore instinct after instinc. And the separation of nature actually means giving away your instincs and taking a more rational stance, so it's in fact the solution.Quote:
Remember that violence can have a rational function in a few cases. That's why it's natural, but the increased violence is a result of civilization. The separation from nature is not a solution, on the contrary only a change of the human genes would be a solution, but that would mean no existing human today would be good enough. The problem is, when humans lose the strong urges, their strong will to struggle for anything at all, which is the root of violence, they lose their ability and will to survive. So the only way of ending human violence in civilization, would be to end all humans. The only way that works is to recreate something that to the instincts look nearly the same as nature, so that violence instincts aren't born all the time, but with safety system against incidents similar to those in the early civilization.
On nature we depended on rationality to evolve. On nature we must be aware of all survival problems that civilization tries to solve. On nature humans also killed themselves as i already said, and civilization spreads humanity and tries to keep humans alive, then the conclusion is the contrary: in natural state the mortality rate will be higher, there will be more irrational violence and there will be less reflexion, so it's more logic to say that nature leads to extintion of the human kin.Quote:
BTW, civilization is a part of evolution, yes, but many paths of evolution lead to extreme destruction and mass death. The asteroid theories to explain all mass death events througout prehistory are ridiculous. The fact that evolution reaches tracks that can't possibly lead to survival is the only realistic explanation to this. And civilization, with it's violence, it's irrationalism in a society when rationalism is necessary to avoid destruction, and it's destruction of nature by pollution etc., WILL lead to the elimination of most or all humans. Remember that in nature we weren't depending on rationalism to work in order to avoid violence, here on the other hand, we are.
What means "in the form it had then". Society is the beggining of civilization (again). Some times you refer to the natural state and some times, to the "natural society" ~:confused: .Quote:
Even though I might praise the society before civilization, I thereby do not mean that society, in the form it had then, could be recreated. That is an impossibility. I just think it's interesting, there's a lot of interesting lessons for the future to learn from the process when civilization was created.[/
@ Idomeneas. I wouldn't bother so much if I were you. No one else except from Greeks can understand that a nation that has been around for 3.500 years (minimum) has gone through major identity changes, which is normal, but can still remain one nation, one continuity through time. Bear in mind that most european nations' history only counts less than 2.000 years, actually a lot less than that. They compare us to FYROMers, Bosnians, etc, because they simply cannot understand how it is ever possible for someone to be part of a chain whose first link is 3.500 years old. Of course I cannot prove (with a birth sertificate or with eye-witnesses, or by any means) that I am related with Pericles or Vrasidas or Alexander or Komninoi or Kolokotronis, but I share with them a common land, a common language, a common culture.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idomeneas