History Western Civilization, Rome and Cyclical History

[ATP]

We have gone through multiple cycles of romantic and rational philosophy since the enlightenment. Also, you have to completely differentiate the french vs anglo-american branches of philosophy at that time. They are polar opposites, the Anglo-american enlightenment was rationalist, while the French revolution was romantic.

Skipping two hundred years you get to our current troubles which come from the romantic post-modernist movement replacing the rationalist positivist movement (which was where the Scientific method came out of)

Well,scientific method was used by cisterian monks first....

 

[Skallagrim]

Can I ask you to elaborate on this?

The Enlightenment and the aftermath Reformation pretty much covers the course of the last 5-300 years of history. Isn't it a bit extreme to call it a massive mistake and a net negative on the world?

I mean I can of course gesture to the problems plagueing current state of the modern world, but then again everything manmade eventually succumbs to entropy and collapses.

We do make a distinction between the Reformation and the Enlightenment, but the point is that one precedes the other, and facilitates the other; even informs and cultivates it (albeit, as I said, quite unintentionally: humans rarely make centuries-long master plans, and when they do, they tend to fail dramatically).

The relevant observation, I think, is that we are talking about collapsing order; the decay of cohesion. Roughly speaking, 1500-1800 is the European equivalent of the Sping and Autumn period in China, and 1800-2100 is the equivalent of the Warring States period. One is an escalation of the other. The first sees the erosion of the traditional order, and the second sees the actual break-down.



As something of an aside (or general remark): the above, to me, implies to me that there is something unintentionally deceptive in Spengler's poetically appealing description of Spring, Summer, Autumn and Winter as the phases of a Civilisation's evolution. To him, looking at the West, Spring was about 800-1200 (400 years), Summer was 1200-1800 (600 years), Autumn is 1800-2100 (300 years) and Winter will be 2100-2600 (500 years).

I'd rather say that there is a Formational Period, a Manifest Period, a Division (or Decline) Period, and a Turmoil (or Chaos) Period -- all of which last almost 300 years, with the difference made up by brief transition phases in between. (For instance, the period from the French Revolution to Napoleon's final exile is such a transitional period.)

We now live in the Turmoil/Chaos phase of civilisational history. After the last transition (the 'Caesarist' one), this period gives way to the final period, which might be called the Universalist Period. This corresponds to the Universal Empire, when all (or at least most of) the civilisation is encompassed by one political regime. This period is also longer (approaching 500 years) and can itself be divided into the Consummation Phase (the 'Principate'), a brief 'mid-imperial crisis', and then the Terminal Phase (the 'Dominate').

My terminology isn't perfect, but I'm trying to outline how these periods in a civilisational cycle relate to each other. Bringing that back to the original point: division leads to turmoil, and that ends up prompting a reaction embodied in universalism and a quest for stability. The Universal Empire is made possible because people first suffer through its antithesis.

Practically speaking, this doesn't mean that "the world after modernity" completely rejects the Reformation or even the Enlightenment. But it does thoroughly erase its political excesses and its 'disharmonious' elements. Expect the thinking of moderate Enlightenment philosophers to be re-contextualised as part of the tradition, rather than as a breach with tradition, whereas the thinking of radicals will be rejected completely. Similarly, don't expect Protestantism to be stamped out, but rather expect religious universalism, wherein the traditionally-minded Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant denominations will (be ecouraged to) find common ground and -- in effect -- "heal the schism".

(As you can imagine, a re-united, universalist Church will have to be very decentralist and tolerant of doctrinal variations, in order to thrive. And it will be! For this exact same reason, but applied to politics, the Universal Empire that encompasses the West will also be very decentralist, and tolerant of any number of 'localisms'.)

 

[stevep]

It is a regrettable fact that the exact kind of people who know fuck-all about the period, and are motivated by a deep hatred of the Church, invariably feel compelled to spout their ill-informed opinions. Not only that, even: but to do it in a manner that seems aimed at (again) derailing a discussion with their own fixations...



Europe 'remaining' as Tokugawa Japan strikes me as unlikely, since it wasn't like that to begin with. Despite there inevitably being many differing (under)currents in something so vast as Western Christendom, the overall tendency was about the most supportive of science as any culture has ever been in history. (Indeed, in many ways, more open to honest inquiry than is typically the case today! Since present-day biases are very much there, simply not -- yet -- recognised for what they are...)

Anyway, the Reformation (unlike the stupid myth that ill-educated men believe) didn't foster science in any way whatever. The potential for positive reform was in its opposition to (unfortunately very real) corruption in the Church. However, this potential for good was rapidly over-taken by a far more concrete actualisation of evil, when the Reformation turned corrupt itself, and turned into a political power-play.

In the long run, it achieved no net positive. (However, I say again: if the impulses driving it could have been turned towards true reform, within the Church, that could very well have been a good thing. But as far as science is concerned, it would make no meaningful difference.)

It a pity your a fool and a coward that can't convince yourself as capable of error. Your back to the sort of ignorant ranks you were using last month. That's why you produce such inaccurate comments and fall back so quickly on hate rants.

I don't hate your church, I understand it. I try and avoid hatred period because its stupid and pointless but again you can't conceive of people thinking other than you do.

Again this last point is totally untrue. You can't have a broad understanding of the world without a good standard of education on a broad base of the population. This is like the BS you were ranting last month,

 

[stevep]

Think about it. The fact is that the sort of discussion we're having here would be impossible in the sort of world many of you dream of. Apart from the lack of a technological base for such widespread communication you would neither have the educational basis for it nor the ability to openly criticise the current dominant world viewpoint.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

It a pity your a fool and a coward that can't convince yourself as capable of error. Your back to the sort of ignorant ranks you were using last month. That's why you produce such inaccurate comments and fall back so quickly on hate rants.

I don't hate your church, I understand it. I try and avoid hatred period because its stupid and pointless but again you can't conceive of people thinking other than you do.

Again this last point is totally untrue. You can't have a broad understanding of the world without a good standard of education on a broad base of the population. This is like the BS you were ranting last month,

To put this as kindly as possible, you are the one who barged in going off negatively about the Middle Ages. Or, more specifically, Renaissance era propaganda about it. And a lot of the Medieval Roman Church's publicity problem (which had its flaws as many here are willing to accept. There would not have been a Reformation otherwise) derive from Protestant propaganda.

Recently the popular conception of the filthy and primitive Middle Ages is being contended and overturned by basically every serious historian and it is damned unfortunate that this hasn't happened sooner. Remember, the construction of a Cathedral would have been comically beyond the Ancient Egyptians.

I think on this subject, you, might be the one in error.

 

[Cherico]

To put this as kindly as possible, you are the one who barged in going off negatively about the Middle Ages. Or, more specifically, Renaissance era propaganda about it. And a lot of the Medieval Roman Church's publicity problem (which had its flaws as many here are willing to accept. There would not have been a Reformation otherwise) derive from Protestant propaganda.

Recently the popular conception of the filthy and primitive Middle Ages is being contended and overturned by basically every serious historian and it is damned unfortunate that this hasn't happened sooner. Remember, the construction of a Cathedral would have been comically beyond the Ancient Egyptians.

I think on this subject, you, might be the one in error.

The middle ages were complicated it turns out periods of time that occupy centuries worth of time are going to be complex.

 

[Skallagrim]

To put this as kindly as possible, you are the one who barged in going off negatively about the Middle Ages. Or, more specifically, Renaissance era propaganda about it. And a lot of the Medieval Roman Church's publicity problem (which had its flaws as many here are willing to accept. There would not have been a Reformation otherwise) derive from Protestant propaganda.

Recently the popular conception of the filthy and primitive Middle Ages is being contended and overturned by basically every serious historian and it is damned unfortunate that this hasn't happened sooner. Remember, the construction of a Cathedral would have been comically beyond the Ancient Egyptians.

I think on this subject, you, might be the one in error.

The middle ages were complicated it turns out periods of time that occupy centuries worth of time are going to be complex.

There is the additional problem (so often seen when the ill-informed speak loudly, and indeed again demonstrated in this case) that "socio-political organisation" and "technological development" are incorrectly equated (possibly out of stupidity, but after so many repetitions despite prior correction, far more probably out of active malice).

Imagine for a second that Augustus establishes the Principate, back in the day, and some random Roman fellow ambles up and says: "Ah, you're a monarch! And the last time we had monarchs was centuries ago, so I bet you want to roll back technological development, huh?!"

That kind of statement would be dismissed as the raving of a lunatic. And it should be dismissed in that manner now.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

There is the additional problem (so often seen when the ill-informed speak loudly, and indeed again demonstrated in this case) that "socio-political organisation" and "technological development" are incorrectly equated (possibly out of stupidity, but after so many repetitions despite prior correction, far more probably out of active malice).

Imagine for a second that Augustus establishes the Principate, back in the day, and some random Roman fellow ambles up and says: "Ah, you're a monarch! And the last time we had monarchs was centuries ago, so I bet you want to roll back technological development, huh?!"

That kind of statement would be dismissed as the raving of a lunatic. And it should be dismissed in that manner now.

Might be a bit off topic, but this is why I find Dune's Imperium a very believable future for the human race. Very, very, many crowned heads have been patrons of the arts and sciences.

Edit: Charles II created the Royal Observatory in Greenwich and had his own bloody private laboratory in St James's Palace.

 

[ATP]

We do make a distinction between the Reformation and the Enlightenment, but the point is that one precedes the other, and facilitates the other; even informs and cultivates it (albeit, as I said, quite unintentionally: humans rarely make centuries-long master plans, and when they do, they tend to fail dramatically).

The relevant observation, I think, is that we are talking about collapsing order; the decay of cohesion. Roughly speaking, 1500-1800 is the European equivalent of the Sping and Autumn period in China, and 1800-2100 is the equivalent of the Warring States period. One is an escalation of the other. The first sees the erosion of the traditional order, and the second sees the actual break-down.



As something of an aside (or general remark): the above, to me, implies to me that there is something unintentionally deceptive in Spengler's poetically appealing description of Spring, Summer, Autumn and Winter as the phases of a Civilisation's evolution. To him, looking at the West, Spring was about 800-1200 (400 years), Summer was 1200-1800 (600 years), Autumn is 1800-2100 (300 years) and Winter will be 2100-2600 (500 years).

I'd rather say that there is a Formational Period, a Manifest Period, a Division (or Decline) Period, and a Turmoil (or Chaos) Period -- all of which last almost 300 years, with the difference made up by brief transition phases in between. (For instance, the period from the French Revolution to Napoleon's final exile is such a transitional period.)

We now live in the Turmoil/Chaos phase of civilisational history. After the last transition (the 'Caesarist' one), this period gives way to the final period, which might be called the Universalist Period. This corresponds to the Universal Empire, when all (or at least most of) the civilisation is encompassed by one political regime. This period is also longer (approaching 500 years) and can itself be divided into the Consummation Phase (the 'Principate'), a brief 'mid-imperial crisis', and then the Terminal Phase (the 'Dominate').

My terminology isn't perfect, but I'm trying to outline how these periods in a civilisational cycle relate to each other. Bringing that back to the original point: division leads to turmoil, and that ends up prompting a reaction embodied in universalism and a quest for stability. The Universal Empire is made possible because people first suffer through its antithesis.

Practically speaking, this doesn't mean that "the world after modernity" completely rejects the Reformation or even the Enlightenment. But it does thoroughly erase its political excesses and its 'disharmonious' elements. Expect the thinking of moderate Enlightenment philosophers to be re-contextualised as part of the tradition, rather than as a breach with tradition, whereas the thinking of radicals will be rejected completely. Similarly, don't expect Protestantism to be stamped out, but rather expect religious universalism, wherein the traditionally-minded Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant denominations will (be ecouraged to) find common ground and -- in effect -- "heal the schism".

(As you can imagine, a re-united, universalist Church will have to be very decentralist and tolerant of doctrinal variations, in order to thrive. And it will be! For this exact same reason, but applied to politics, the Universal Empire that encompasses the West will also be very decentralist, and tolerant of any number of 'localisms'.)

I hope for that - but you forget Elephant in room - existing cabal of enlinghtened banksters who want send us to ETERNAL GULAG.
Well,two other elephants,too - islam and China.

That unholy trinity want us enslaved.I do not see much hope,unless Holy Mary made another miracle.For which i pray.

Think about it. The fact is that the sort of discussion we're having here would be impossible in the sort of world many of you dream of. Apart from the lack of a technological base for such widespread communication you would neither have the educational basis for it nor the ability to openly criticise the current dominant world viewpoint.

Poor victim of protestant propaganda.It was catholic monks who discuss about basically everytching,including existence of God.
And,if you think that our times are free,try start talking logically about lgbt+56 in any other place then here.

 

[Cherico]

I hope for that - but you forget Elephant in room - existing cabal of enlinghtened banksters who want send us to ETERNAL GULAG.
Well,two other elephants,too - islam and China.

That unholy trinity want us enslaved.I do not see much hope,unless Holy Mary made another miracle.For which i pray.




Poor victim of protestant propaganda.It was catholic monks who discuss about basically everytching,including existence of God.
And,if you think that our times are free,try start talking logically about lgbt+56 in any other place then here.

Historically speaking those guys don't win in the long run in the long run they get purged.

As Skall said rule of money doesn't last forever.

 

[LordDemiurge]

Apart from the lack of a technological base for such widespread communication

Do you think the only two forms of governance that exist are 21st century universal liberal democracies and everything else. Which apparently encompasses every human civilization for the last 10,000 years?

nor the ability to openly criticise the current dominant world viewpoint.

Which is not unique to our time...

The concept of people being able to mock or criticize your government was present even in the time of the Byzantine Emperors

Even in the late Ancien Regime you had cartoonists satirizing the local monarchy and running gossip columns about them.

ou would neither have the educational basis for it

Educational basis is a matter of economic and technological circumstances.

Medieval peasants did not have our quality of education simply because humanity before the 21st century was poor as dirt.

It took anything from half a dozen to a dozen farmers to support a single non-farmer. That's not really some conspiracy to keep the masses down, that's just the reality of the time.

 

[ATP]

Historically speaking those guys don't win in the long run in the long run they get purged.

As Skall said rule of money doesn't last forever.

Not,if they manage to turn our world in ONE BIG GULAG.Then it never fall,or rather fall when 90% die from hunger.
Becouse both soviets and their new version are very skilled in living from dying serfs.
I read memories of poles who survived either gulags or exile to Kazachstan - party really do not cared how many of its slaves die,as long as there would be enough to work for them.

We could end like tose poor souls,but without hope for running to West - becouse there would be no West then.

Soviets fell,and China changed,becouse there was relatively normal rest of the world.But,if all people were slaves,then system would exist till there would be really notching left except some hunter-gatherer tribes.

To be honest,i would be not shocked if on Earth existed once advanced cyvilization - but get woke,made world GULAG,and vanished leaving few prymitive tribes.

 

[Simonbob]

Soviets fell,and China changed,becouse there was relatively normal rest of the world.But,if all people were slaves,then system would exist till there would be really notching left except some hunter-gatherer tribes.

Man, that's even more blackpilled than I am. It's also not how these things work, unless we go the full Easter Island. And on a planetary scale, that's pretty much impossible.

No, if they win (And, understand, that's not very likely. They're not remotely as capable as many think), then within a few hundred years at most, the whole thing will fall apart. Corruption will break the tools needed to hold it together.


It'd be a really horrible time, for that period, and the end wouldn't be nice in any way, but it'll never last. Just as it never lasts with any other system.

 

[ATP]

Man, that's even more blackpilled than I am. It's also not how these things work, unless we go the full Easter Island. And on a planetary scale, that's pretty much impossible.

No, if they win (And, understand, that's not very likely. They're not remotely as capable as many think), then within a few hundred years at most, the whole thing will fall apart. Corruption will break the tools needed to hold it together.


It'd be a really horrible time, for that period, and the end wouldn't be nice in any way, but it'll never last. Just as it never lasts with any other system.

But when it fall,we would inherit polluted Earth with remnant of population,except some tribes,turned into soveks/soviet people/
Humanity would start from caves,or at best villages.

 

[stevep]

There is the additional problem (so often seen when the ill-informed speak loudly, and indeed again demonstrated in this case) that "socio-political organisation" and "technological development" are incorrectly equated (possibly out of stupidity, but after so many repetitions despite prior correction, far more probably out of active malice).

Imagine for a second that Augustus establishes the Principate, back in the day, and some random Roman fellow ambles up and says: "Ah, you're a monarch! And the last time we had monarchs was centuries ago, so I bet you want to roll back technological development, huh?!"

That kind of statement would be dismissed as the raving of a lunatic. And it should be dismissed in that manner now.

At least I'm not afraid to think. Nor do I lie about people or their views or descend to personal abuse. I will match my desire for understanding against your ego any day. It is a pity your don't listen to your own advice. Not surprised that your lying about what I'm saying again. As I said elsewhere to another fool you suffer from what I call the god delusion. You think your an Abrahamic deity who can alter reality on a whim. No you can't.

 

[stevep]

To put this as kindly as possible, you are the one who barged in going off negatively about the Middle Ages. Or, more specifically, Renaissance era propaganda about it. And a lot of the Medieval Roman Church's publicity problem (which had its flaws as many here are willing to accept. There would not have been a Reformation otherwise) derive from Protestant propaganda.

Recently the popular conception of the filthy and primitive Middle Ages is being contended and overturned by basically every serious historian and it is damned unfortunate that this hasn't happened sooner. Remember, the construction of a Cathedral would have been comically beyond the Ancient Egyptians.

I think on this subject, you, might be the one in error.

Possibly but until somebodies supplies actually coherent argument, as opposed to rants from opinionated fools like Skallagrim I will stick with the evidence I have. There was a lot of sophistication in the middle ages but there was also as others are saying a hell of a lot of poverty, ignorance and oppression.

 

[stevep]

Do you think the only two forms of governance that exist are 21st century universal liberal democracies and everything else. Which apparently encompasses every human civilization for the last 10,000 years?



Which is not unique to our time...

The concept of people being able to mock or criticize your government was present even in the time of the Byzantine Emperors

Even in the late Ancien Regime you had cartoonists satirizing the local monarchy and running gossip columns about them.


Educational basis is a matter of economic and technological circumstances.

Medieval peasants did not have our quality of education simply because humanity before the 21st century was poor as dirt.

It took anything from half a dozen to a dozen farmers to support a single non-farmer. That's not really some conspiracy to keep the masses down, that's just the reality of the time.

No, not at all. Don't be confused by Skallagrim's repeated attempts here and elsewhere to lie about what I say. That's one of his standard actions, along with irrational rants when faced with an argument he has no coherent argument to.

From what I've seen I have a far more detailed understanding of the wide range of possible human cultures than many people here. Which is why I'm not so obsessed with the idea of corrupted oligarchies ruling everything.

Yes in the past you could criticize rulers and wise rulers, to a degree, allowed it as a useful escape value and also a way of finding out what people were concerned about. However it tended to be dangerous and often done secretly.

Quite true that general education requires a wealthy and stable economy and the social circumstances to allow it. I would argue however that the wealth and success required also needs something other than a small elite being able to make decisions and affect the economy. I think your misunderstanding what I'm actually saying. I think it needs certain circumstances to expand knowledge and economic power beyond a small elite and without that you can't have the sort of technological development that did occur and lifted so many out of poverty and ignorance.

 

[stevep]

There is the additional problem (so often seen when the ill-informed speak loudly, and indeed again demonstrated in this case) that "socio-political organisation" and "technological development" are incorrectly equated (possibly out of stupidity, but after so many repetitions despite prior correction, far more probably out of active malice).

Imagine for a second that Augustus establishes the Principate, back in the day, and some random Roman fellow ambles up and says: "Ah, you're a monarch! And the last time we had monarchs was centuries ago, so I bet you want to roll back technological development, huh?!"

That kind of statement would be dismissed as the raving of a lunatic. And it should be dismissed in that manner now.

So its fortunate that, as you well know unless your a total idiot I'm not saying anything like that. Just you seeking to distort the facts again.

 

[Skallagrim]

Anyway, back on topic:

Might be a bit off topic, but (...)

No, it's really on-topic, I think.

(...)this is why I find Dune's Imperium a very believable future for the human race. Very, very, many crowned heads have been patrons of the arts and sciences.

In the long term, assuming that some kind of post-human future is avoided, something like Dune is indeed very realistic. I've said it years ago, elsewhere, and I'll say it again: when you watch those old Star Trek episodes where they encounter something like the Roman Empire in space, the idea of there being a Federation (that forever propagates a progressive myth of whiggish ideas) is far less plausible than those Space Romans!

Obviously, it wouldn't be actual Romans-except-in-space, but the notion that all advanced civilisations (or even any advanced civilisations) are going to be secular, progressive democracies for any meaningful length of time is jus based on... nothing. There is no reason why that would be the case.

Which really does mean that Frank Herbert gave us, perhaps, the most realistic envisioning of a "far future" that we could have asked for. There are others like it, but those do have more elements of obvious pastiche (even Asimov). Herbert took the idea, and gave it a more original and plausible form. Not just an expy of some historical civilisation, but a future civilisation that is actually like historical civilisations.

That takes effort, and real clarity of vision.

 

[ATP]

At least I'm not afraid to think. Nor do I lie about people or their views or descend to personal abuse. I will match my desire for understanding against your ego any day. It is a pity your don't listen to your own advice. Not surprised that your lying about what I'm saying again. As I said elsewhere to another fool you suffer from what I call the god delusion. You think your an Abrahamic deity who can alter reality on a whim. No you can't.

You should decide who is abrahamic deity,i or @Skallagrim .
Becouse,for your information,it could be only one!