I never meant to suggest that you were, and meant no offense by this. I only sought to show that this is the level at which I encounter this line of reasoning. My apologies.
That's fair. I apologize too.
Quote:
I can agree with this in part, but am not so naïve as to conclude that the challenges to the modern worldview have spelled its end or doomed it to failure. Furthermore, each one of those material signs tends to be evaluated in a very limited sense. "Environmental degradation", for example, tends to presume that nature is prestine, failing to acknowledge that the natural world is also savage and hostile to our species.
Well, let's not forget that political regimes can fail. Marxist-Leninism being the most recent. Old Castro is on record now as saying that Cuban Communism wasn't the best thing in the world. What makes liberal progressivism immune?
I honestly cannot say for sure, because quantifying such changes as positive or negative will will generally become subject to the collective conscience.
I think the common experience is sort of a strange benchmark according to current metrics. We normally look at the mean or average experience and we forget that the most interesting things happen at the extremes (discounted as statistically insignificant by statisticians). What about the young men and women that still join up to fight and die for their country?
...Well, let's not forget that political regimes can fail. Marxist-Leninism being the most recent. Old Castro is on record now as saying that Cuban Communism wasn't the best thing in the world. What makes liberal progressivism immune?
Perhaps I am idealistic for thinking as much, but I am optimistic about the survival and improvement of liberalism on the basis that it is not oppressive in the same sense as communism, which persisted largely through suppression. Granted, the divide that exists between the third/first world can be construed as a new kind of oppression, but the freedom we enjoy through which we can critique the existing structures provides hope for the prospect of non-reactionary change. Does that make any sense?
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
"WBC burned the Koran once – and if you sissy brats of Doomed america bully Terry Jones and the Dove World Outreach Center until they change their plans to burn that blasphemous tripe called the Koran, then WBC will burn it (again), to clearly show you some things," the church announced in a news release this week.
Perhaps I am idealistic for thinking as much, but I am optimistic about the survival and improvement of liberalism on the basis that it is not oppressive in the same sense as communism, which persisted largely through suppression. Granted, the divide that exists between the third/first world can be construed as a new kind of oppression, but the freedom we enjoy through which we can critique the existing structures provides hope for the prospect of non-reactionary change. Does that make any sense?
This fellow, Slavoj Zizek, argues pretty convincingly that liberalism died twice; the death of the peaceful Western utopia on 9/11 and the death of global capitalism during the 2008 Housing Crisis and subsequent bailout.
I'm not a Marxist, but his arguments are interesting.
This fellow, Slavoj Zizek, argues pretty convincingly that liberalism died twice; the death of the peaceful Western utopia on 9/11 and the death of global capitalism during the 2008 Housing Crisis and subsequent bailout.
I'm not a Marxist, but his arguments are interesting.
"Do we need further proof, Zizek asks, that Capital is the Real of our lives: the Real whose demands are more absolute than even the most pressing problems of our natural and social world?"
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
__________________
We may curse our bad luck that it's sounds like its; who's sounds like whose; they're sounds like their (and there); and you're sounds like your. But if we are grown-ups who have been through full-time education, we have no excuse for muddling them up.
I guess I could just attack Christianity as per Hoz:
Ever hear of the Dark Ages? That's the time when christianity ruled the world.
And from the time of the fall of Rome, until the Renaissance - when people began to again value intellectual thought, not one significant discovery was made. Can you name one signficant scientist or scientific discovery from the 6th century? The 7th? 8th, 9th, 10th?
Now, how many can you name from the 20th?
In the Dark Ages, irrationalism replaced rationalism. In Rome, it was believed by many that the brain was the seat of intellect, and that the heart was just a muscle. In Greece, and later in Rome, it was held that the world was round... in fact, Eratosthenes measured the circumference of the world. People knew 1800 years ago how large the world was... but 1000 years later, they had NO IDEA. The heliocentric system was first uncovered in Greece.
But in the dark ages, irrationalism ruled, knowledge was shunned, and ignorace took over... people thought the world was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth, they believed that the heart was the center of the intellect.... where did this ignorance come from? The bible.
And even worse, diseases that were easily cured by ROMANS were uncurable for people living centuries AFTER the fall of Rome.
The Greeks and Romans invented the clinical method of science and medicine! They held that diseases were natural and curable.
Then came christianity, that shunned knowledge, actively worked against the disease model of medicine, and replaced it with demonology... now, a disease was a demon... Medical science actually went backwards, we actually LOST knowledge!
Think that isn't important?
Well, because of that, the lifespan of mankind actualy shrunk during that time. That's right, 1000 years after the fall of Rome, people were dying at an earlier age than they were prior to the fall of Rome. That's right, as time passed, things actually got worse.
If you don't think that's significant, you tell me what you think the life span will be 1000 years from now. Do you think it will shrink?
How many centuries are we behind? 300-400?
Maybe more.... just look at Greece from 500 BCE to Roman times around 200-300 AD.... look at the growth in thought....
Here's just one sobering thought. Rome, the capital city of the Roman empire, was the world's first city to approach a population of around 1 million - around 100 AD.
They were able to achieve this through technology - fine roads the could be traversed by heavy populations.... well structured buildings built to last.... (go to Rome today and take a look a some) and fresh, clean water... enough not only for drinking, but for public bathing!
The Roman aquaducts were a marvel - Roman civil engineers found a way to bring fresh clean water to a million people....
When was the next time a western city had a population of one million? When's the next time a city met this level of technological achievement?
London.
In the 19th century.
Thanks christianity. Thanks a heap. Thanks for diverting our minds to 'faith' thanks to diverting our works to building cathedrals, rather than cities.
Seriously, you really need to study up. Not only is bad...it is really bad.
I already provided a link which you never followed which would have helped you. Since I can't force you to click on a link I will give you a few suggestions. I hope you, and others, take advantage of it.
On Youtube. ( I am not linking it because I get the feeling that people think if they click and follow a link I provide it will kill them)
So....
Suggestions....
Youtube: Dark Ages Engineering an Empire - though there are many, including Rome, check out China for their technological advances. Truly amazing stuff. Especially their stone and bridgework and ships. Since most of that was at the time of the Roman Empire through to the Enlightenment.
