History What are some of your most contraversial takes on history?

[Doomsought]

Is there any philosophy that creates a guilt culture outside of Christianity? I am not aware of one.

Also the idea of natural law never gained traction in any religion outside of Christianity. The few other pihilosophies that came up with the idea I am aware nearly got written out of history for how unpopular they were. The scientific method itself is the result of centuries of epistemological debate among christian monks.

 

[Winston Bush]

Socrates is very overrated.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

Socrates is very overrated.

The funny thing about Socrates is we know very little about him other than the fictionalized depictions in the writings of Plato. Socrates himself is an enigmatic figure who left behind no writings at all.

In other words, Socrates is entirely fanfiction.

 

[FriedCFour]

Alright, here's an opinion that may be niche.

Had the Zulu not attacked Rorke's Drift, they may well have "won" the Anglo-Zulu War. Simply put, as their King recognised, they could make the argument of "self-defence" against an unauthorised invasion which would wipe out public and political support for the war (what little there was initially) in Britain.

Essentially, had that Impi (Zulu regiment) not been so impetuous, the Zulu War could have been even more embarrassing for the British.

An extremely early disastrous defeat followed up by an extremely early incredible victory definitely is one of the unique parts of the Zulu War.

 

[Terthna]

Is there any philosophy that creates a guilt culture outside of Christianity? I am not aware of one.

Also the idea of natural law never gained traction in any religion outside of Christianity. The few other pihilosophies that came up with the idea I am aware nearly got written out of history for how unpopular they were. The scientific method itself is the result of centuries of epistemological debate among christian monks.

The earliest roots of the scientific method can be traced back to Ancient Greece, to the works of people like Archimedes and Hippocrates. So while it is true that the concept fully matured under the auspice of Christianity, that had more to do with the fact almost nobody wasn't a Christian (indeed; not being one could get you killed for much of our history), than anything unique to Christianity.

 

[FriedCFour]

The earliest roots of the scientific method can be traced back to Ancient Greece, to the works of people like Archimedes and Hippocrates. So while it is true that the concept fully matured under the auspice of Christianity, that had more to do with the fact almost nobody wasn't a Christian (indeed; not being one could get you killed for much of our history), than anything unique to Christianity.

The Catholic Church as an institution did a whole lot of sponsorship of science and of development, and seeing as it ran across and through all nations as a hierarchical institution that allowed for coordination between efforts and works of different cultures especially prior to the printing press with them being literate and transcribing books and knowledge, it definitely helped. Also for most of Christianities history that wasn’t the case or in most nations. Even under the Crusades there was toleration of the others, it wasn’t all one big bloody endless war. It was a series of military conflicts. Like, they traded with various Islamic traders without killing them as soon as they set foot in their land. The East Orthodox had the Varangian Guard who I don’t think were ostensibly all Christians. I’d say that in actuality you see a much more violent and aggressive reaction to heretics rather than heathens, because the major examples I can think of have paganism as a more mixed bag whereas heresy is pretty much all highly violent other than the Orthodox/Catholic split.

 

[stevep]

I don't think that "the world would have developed Christian ethics regardless", as those values were derived from the unique nature of Christianity. Every other religion appeals to your ego. "You can be a good person by doing X, Y, and Z!". Christianity doesn't tell you what you want to hear. Christianity tells you that your screwed, and no "good works" you do will make up for that. But that's okay, because God has taken care of everything. You need only accept his gift.

I don't think men would have come up with that, nor the values that go along with that. It's too contrary to men's sinful, self serving nature. The message could have only come from a divine source, and so too the values.

But I guess that's getting offtopic here. That's my 2 cents.

Is there actually that much of a difference here? The older religions demanded you do the right thing, chiefly respecting the gods. With some play on being a 'good' person. Christianity as you say demand you respect - or possibly more accurately worship - a god with some play again on being a 'good' person.

Christianity seems to have marked success in the later period of the classical Roman empire because:
a) It fitted in with the more autocratic and sol nature of the latter empire. By sol I mean a faith with claims to universal power and values with an empire that claimed to be universal.
b) Christian groups in that period, at least according to some reports, were more organising in helping the ordinary people, at least Christian people, whereas the basic ethos of the bulk of those with power was more like the current right wing view on capitalism, i.e. there's no morals or society, just do what you want to improve your own position. [Which might be a factor in why you are getting more converts to Islam in some western communities.?]
c) People were desperate and hence more willing to try something different as the old faiths seem to be failing to provide any degree of security for them and their families.
d) When in power the more autocratic nature of Christianity meant that it was far more difficult to replace than earlier 'pagan' faiths.

 

[FriedCFour]

Is there actually that much of a difference here? The older religions demanded you do the right thing, chiefly respecting the gods. With some play on being a 'good' person. Christianity as you say demand you respect - or possibly more accurately worship - a god with some play again on being a 'good' person.

I mean if you’re going to boil it down to just “both religions say you should be good so the same” well at that point you might as well say all religions up to and including atheist humanism are all just not that different. Everyone says “be good”. What is good is often vastly different between all. And that’s without getting into all the other aspects of it from metaphysics to nature of humanity to culture to focus.

 

[stevep]

I mean if you’re going to boil it down to just “both religions say you should be good so the same” well at that point you might as well say all religions up to and including atheist humanism are all just not that different. Everyone says “be good”. What is good is often vastly different between all. And that’s without getting into all the other aspects of it from metaphysics to nature of humanity to culture to focus.

What I meant was the previous poster had suggested that older religions "appealed to people's ego's" by telling them to 'be good' then that Christianity was different because it required you to accept god's gift, which is pretty much the Abrahmic definition of "being good". There are marked social and culture differences between different faiths and similarly between the same faith at different times or locations. If you think I meant otherwise then I possibly explained it poorly. However I was seeking to point out that what he said was the difference sounded very like a similarity between the two.

 

[FriedCFour]

then that Christianity was different because it required you to accept god's gift, which is pretty much the Abrahmic definition of "being good".

It’s not the Abrahamic definition and all three of the “Abrahamic” faiths have different ideas, and each sect within has different ideas as well. “All you have to do is accept gods gift” is a prot who only attends church on Christmas and Easter and never cracked open the Bible’s idea of what being good is.

 

[stevep]

It’s not the Abrahamic definition and all three of the “Abrahamic” faiths have different ideas, and each sect within has different ideas as well. “All you have to do is accept gods gift” is a prot who only attends church on Christmas and Easter and never cracked open the Bible’s idea of what being good is.

OK thanks for clarifying. I was reading it as accepting 'god' as the one true god and worshiping him in more than a token form.

 

[FriedCFour]

OK thanks for clarifying. I was reading it as accepting 'god' as the one true god and worshiping him in more than a token form.

I mean that’s a part of it. I can’t speak to Judaism or Islam as much, but both Protestant and Catholic Christianity have ideas around faith and works. Catholicism is faith + works, ie you must hold faith and do measurable works for Christ for salvation that determines time spent in purgatory before entering Heaven. Protestant Christianity eliminates faith and works and says faith alone. At the same time, if you do no works, ie. As a person remained totally unchanged and do nothing differently, you likely have no faith. It’s that there are no measurable number of good works and good deeds that is quantified and scaled. A man who brings a thousand to Christ is as worthy of salvation and equal to a man who brings one, in essence, that there aren’t Saints a cut above everyone in a higher standing and closer to god than all others.

 

[stevep]

I mean that’s a part of it. I can’t speak to Judaism or Islam as much, but both Protestant and Catholic Christianity have ideas around faith and works. Catholicism is faith + works, ie you must hold faith and do measurable works for Christ for salvation that determines time spent in purgatory before entering Heaven. Protestant Christianity eliminates faith and works and says faith alone. At the same time, if you do no works, ie. As a person remained totally unchanged and do nothing differently, you likely have no faith. It’s that there are no measurable number of good works and good deeds that is quantified and scaled. A man who brings a thousand to Christ is as worthy of salvation and equal to a man who brings one, in essence, that there aren’t Saints a cut above everyone in a higher standing and closer to god than all others.

I wouldn't say its that cut and dried. Catholicism has had different systems at different times. Notoriously in the run up to the Reformation there was the indulgences scandal with very much an open 'give us the money and you go to heaven' approach. Later in the counter-reformation a fair chunk of the movements seems to have been faith alone is important and people shouldn't use logic to try and decide what is morally correct.

Similarly the Protestant groups vary quite a lot. Many seem to value good works quite a lot and there was an emphasis in reading and understanding the bible rather than taking unquestioning obedience from a clerical elite. [Although of course quite frequently you end up with a similar autocratic system with the authorities being largely above question, such is human nature.] Also there were the Calvinists who as I understand it basically say its all per-ordained so it basically doesn't matter what you do in terms of going to heaven or hell.

Likewise in Islam there are is it 7 basic demands on Muslims that many seem to take as meaning they will go to paradise whether they actually believe in the ideas or do other work good or bad.

That's why I was saying to Val that the Abrahamic definition of being good was often accepting "god's" rule, which generally meant obeying the clerical authorities, often with no room for questioning this. Think I misread your reply in post 210 as saying that it was sufficient to display token worship, hence my reply in post 211 but re-reading it now you might have meant the opposite. In which case I apologies for the misunderstanding.

 

[FriedCFour]

Similarly the Protestant groups vary quite a lot. Many seem to value good works quite a lot and there was an emphasis in reading and understanding the bible rather than taking unquestioning obedience from a clerical elite.

When I say Protestant I’m talking specifically about the core idea of the five solas that runs through most non Calvinist protestants.

I wouldn't say its that cut and dried. Catholicism has had different systems at different times. Notoriously in the run up to the Reformation there was the indulgences scandal with very much an open 'give us the money and you go to heaven' approach. Later in the counter-reformation a fair chunk of the movements seems to have been faith alone is important and people shouldn't use logic to try and decide what is morally correct.

It’s always been faith and works. Indulgences were considered a work.

 

[ATP]

Medieval times shall never end - and reneissance was beginning of our current disaster.

 

[Doomsought]

renaissance was beginning of our current disaster.

yes or more accurately the last wave of it. the renaissance was not a rebirth of the sciences, the opposite really, it was a rebirth of the arts and romanticism. Much of what you hear about the renaissance is actually renaissance era historical revisionism and propaganda. The natural philosophies had been flourishing under the church, and the renaissance set them back by reviving classical Greek ideas of nonsense such as elements and humors.

 

[Morphic Tide]

The natural philosophies had been flourishing under the church, and the renaissance set them back by reviving classical Greek ideas of nonsense such as elements and humors.

Natural Philosophy could not have gotten us to modern medicine, because it was not empirically driven. Philosophical reasoning cannot generate novel inputs, which is vital to the advanced physical theories we have today. Wave/particle duality could never have been devised by Natural Philosophy because it is so spectacularly at odds with how everyday life works.

Same with light not needing a medium to travel through, because the entire concept of a wave to Natural Philosophy and early science was the propagation of force through a medium. But the terms of science demand proving your work with physical experimentation, which lead to increasingly contradictory properties of a medium for light until it was finally disproven.

Really, you can basically rattle off almost everything about modern electromagnetic theory and have a solid brick of things Natural Philosophy would never have arrived to itself... Quite especially the unity of electricity and magnetism!

"The Renaissance" is not a singular block one can generalize like this. You saw the revival of classical Greek ideas simply because people actually got exposed to those ideas for the first time in centuries, and then saw robust disproofs based on empirical observation of phenomena that showed they could not be correct from the processes the Renaissance brought forth.

The artistry and romantacism goes hand in hand with the manic scattershot of reasoning at odds with precedent. Not everything from a societal shake-up will prove to be better than what came before, but the important matter that there was a shakeup allowed for truly improved mechanisms of reasoning.

And this is without getting into the usual retorts like asking "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" Angelology was a wondrous example of how rotten pure philosophy is as a means of ascertaining useful knowledge of the physical world, because everything about it was utterly divorced from any hard benchmarks truly confining it to reason, turning it into little more than a popularity contest between "great" thinkers obsessing over nothing remotely able to be shown as real.

 

[Doomsought]

Natural Philosophy could not have gotten us to modern medicine, because it was not empirically driven.

You've got things backwards. The natural philosophy was empirical, unlike the Aristotelian cosmologies that got unearthed during the renaissance.

 

[Morphic Tide]

You've got things backwards. The natural philosophy was empirical, unlike the Aristotelian cosmologies that got unearthed during the renaissance.

Oh really? Where are the logs of experimental observation from church-sponsored Natural Philosophers? People working for a body with an official on-pain-of-exile-if-not-death position that the world had plentiful unobservable phenomena, like the aforementioned Angelology?

Empiricism is the principal that knowledge is acquired by senses. It is actually opposed to philosophy, because it is a rejection of the primacy of reason. It is fundamentally contradictory with handed down traditions or unfalsifiable metaphysics, which is the foundation of the Catholic Church existing in the first place.

And you're obviously missing the point that those were unearthed, meaning they were actually novel inputs to reasoning for the people of the time because they had been outright lost. The rabid empiricists went to town on all that shit over the following three centuries to refine their methods and throw out everything wrong, developing the origins of modern research methodology.

Before you get at it, yes I will admit that empiricism being at odds with tradition is a cause of problems. A society full of sceptics won't be one for long, because everyone will need to know everything, and humans just don't have that much mental capacity. It's why command economies don't work, because things are too complicated for small groups of experts to micromanage everything.

(on the flip side, you get the "lived experiences" nonsense of rabid leftists. That is also an example of pure empiricism, because they effectively declare nothing but their senses matter)

But for figuring out why a given treatment works, and verifying the treatment is in fact what's working...

 

[stevep]

It’s always been faith and works. Indulgences were considered a work.

Possibly by the church but I doubt that was the interpretation of those who couldn't afford a bribe.