Gargantuan (174 pages) paper with an staggering amount of data about family systems and kinship related institutions by Jonathan Schulz et al. (2018): The Origins of WEIRD Psychology (h/t @pseudoerasmus).
Our approach integrates three insights. The first, drawing on anthropology, reveals that the institutions built around kinship and marriage vary greatly across societies (21–23) and that much of this variation developed as societies scaled up in size and complexity, especially after the origins of food production 12,000 years ago (22, 24–29). In forging the tightly-knit communities needed to defend agricultural fields and pastures, cultural evolution gradually wove together social norms governing marriage, post-marital residence and ingroup identity (descent), leading to a diversity of kin-based institutions, including the organizational forms known as clans, lineages and kindreds (21, 27, 30). The second insight, based on work in psychology, is that people’s motivations, emotions, perceptions, thinking styles and other aspects of cognition are heavily influenced by the social norms, social networks, technologies and linguistic worlds they encounter while growing up (31–38). In particular, with intensive kin-based institutions, people’s psychological processes adapt to the collectivistic demands and the dense social networks that they interweave (39–43). Intensive kinship norms reward greater conformity, obedience, holistic/relational awareness and in-group loyalty but discourage individualism, independence and analytical thinking (41, 44). Since the sociality of intensive kinship is based on people’s interpersonal embeddedness, adapting to these institutions tends to reduce people’s inclinations towards impartiality, universal (non-relational) moral principles and impersonal trust, fairness and cooperation. Finally, based on historical evidence, the third insight suggests that the branch of Western Christianity that eventually evolved into the Roman Catholic Church—hereafter, ‘the Western Church’ or simply ‘the Church’—systematically undermined the intensive kin-based institutions of Europe during the Middle Ages (45–52). The Church’s marriage policies and prohibitions, which we will call the Marriage and Family Program (MFP), meant that by 1500 CE, and likely centuries earlier in some regions, Europe lacked strong kin-based institutions, and was instead dominated by relatively weak, independent and isolated nuclear or stem families (49–51, 53–56). This made people exposed to Western Christendom rather unlike nearly all other populations.
Integrating these insights, we propose that the spread of the Church, specifically through its transformation of kinship and marriage, was a key factor behind a cultural shift towards a WEIRDer psychology in Europe. This shift eventually fostered the creation of new formal institutions, including representative governments, individual rights, commercial law and impersonal markets (17, 57). This theory predicts that (1) societies with less intensive kin-based institutions should have a WEIRDer psychology and (2) historical exposure to the Church’s MFP should predict both less intensive kin-based institutions and, as a consequence, a WEIRDer psychology.
Anyhow, there is zero chance that I am going to read this paper closely now or anytime soon, so for now I am just going to highlight the things that caught my eye there.
All the correlations are as we would expect them to be.
Conclusion:
To begin to explain the psychological differences now documented around the globe, we have proposed a two-part theory. First, we hypothesize that, in adapting to the social worlds created by intensive kin-based institutions, human psychology shifts in ways that foster greater conformity, obedience and sensitivity to relational contexts but less individualism, analytic thinking and cooperation with strangers. Second, to account for part of the variation in kinship intensity, we hypothesize that Western Christianity, beginning around 500 CE, gradually implemented a set of policies about marriage and the family—the MFP—that was a critical contributor to the eventual dissolution of the intensive kin-based institutions of Europe. By 1500 CE, this left many regions of Western Europe dominated by independent, monogamous, nuclear families—a peculiar configuration called the European Marriage Pattern (54, 55, 97). This two-part theory implies that the Church, through the MFP, inadvertently contributed to what psychologists have termed WEIRD psychology.
We tested these hypotheses at three levels of analysis. Across countries, our analyses of 16 variables confirm that populations with less intensive kin-based institutions historically are psychologically WEIRDer today: they are more individualistic and independent but less nepotistic, conformist, obedient and holistically-oriented. Socially, populations with weaker kin-based institutions reveal less in-group loyalty, diminished moral particularism and greater trust, fairness and cooperation with strangers. Then, zooming in on Europe, by tracking the diffusion of the MFP from 550 to 1500 CE, we show that the longer a regional population was exposed to the Church, the higher their measures of individualism-independence and generalized trust and fairness and the lower their measure of conformity-obedience. Then, by tapping remnants of intensive kinship in Western Europe, we demonstrate that greater exposure to the Church is associated with less cousin marriage in the 20th century, which in turn is associated with stronger individualism, less conformity and greater impersonal prosociality. In Italy, we further demonstrate that higher rates of cousin marriage are associated with fewer voluntary blood donations (a public good). Lastly, by linking second-generation immigrants in Europe back to the places where their parents originated, we demonstrate that the influence of both intensive kinship and Church exposure can still be detected psychologically among the adult children of immigrants living in the same European countries.
Comments:
-
No, hbd*chick is not acknowledged, though she really should be in what appears to be the most comprehensive overview of this topic to date.
-
Do they produce a national index of kinship intensity/cousin marriage/etc. anywhere in the paper, or could one at least be easily constructed from the wealth of data they have accumulated? (E.g., something like what JayMan attempted to do, if not very rigorously). It would be good to test if kinship intensity, cousin marriage, family structure, and/or some general “inbreeding index” combining all of these, has any independent effects (in addition to IQ/oil windfalls/Communist legacy) on current levels of GDP per capita/general socioeconomic success.
How is this a good thing, considering that this is where the origin of liberalism and LGBTQIATZ movement comes from? I mean a more conformist and conservative West would have been a lot more ruthless against the rise of liberalism in the 1960s.
I’m pretty sure that the LGBTQIATZ movement would be considered an anti WEIRD reaction, commonly referred to as ‘postchristianity’.
Not convinced. This all is a quasi-science of retro-history, similar to Hegelian & Marxist fabulations. Western culture begins in ancient Greece ca. 800-600 B.C. & all other ups & downs of European, and later global civilization, are not comparable to that quantum leap in human history- which remains completely inexplicable.
In other words, nice try, but without explanatory or predictive power.
Dude! What’s up with Finland? The charts above almost make them seem non-white, even though they’re the whitest people I know.
http://cdn.ebin.pw/src/purest%20white%20genes.jpg
But seriously, I don’t know. There are quite a lot of results there that don’t fit the old models very well.
I don’t know where this idea that the West isn’t “conformist” comes from. WEIRDos are ultraconformists, you will get ostracized for even the slightest disagreement from the line that they’ve learned from the TV, their professors and the megacorporations.
Sure, we are constantly told that being a part of the zealous mob is a form of “rebellion” and an expression of “individualism”, but that’s ridiculous. The “rebellious individualism” that’s promoted by Western institutions is rejecting your parents and ancestry and it’s not very different at all from Soviet “hero” stories like Pavel Morozov that were supposed to remind people that loyalty to the Soviet institutions is more virtuous than loyalty to kin.
As for why resistance failed in the 1960s, my grandfather was a right-wing politician of a pretty militant wing from the 1950s to the 1970s so exactly during the time of failure. They focused their efforts continuing the conspiracy of officers who made plans for guerrilla war against Soviet occupation at the end of the war, hiding weapons around the country and re-founding right-wing militias from the Civil War. Their fathers had taken back the country in 1918 with some ruthless rwds action so of course they thought they would do the same thing once the communists tried their coup again.
I inherited a bunch of rusted assault rifles and a pozzed up country not because the right-wing of my grandfathers generation was unwilling to be ruthless but because they prepared to fight the last war again and the left didn’t show up. They failed to foresee the change of strategies by the left away from armed revolution. A big part of why the Western right-wing failed is that they focused too much on the Soviet threat and didn’t even notice that the left was abandoning the USSR as a model.
It’s not a good thing. It shows that liberalism has its roots in European whiteness.
Left has had the initiative since roughly 18th century, they choose what we fight about, where, and how. That is a huge disadvantage for the more traditionally minded people who get outflanked. Traditionalism leads to a lack of initiative. The nutty progressives also by definition dominate modern culture that is all about what my grandpa called ‘novelties‘. It appeals to teenagers and it goes downhill from there.
How about that kin-based cluster in Finland? Amazing, but it doesn’t surprise me. In that cold weather a cute cousin looks pretty good. Or maybe they just researched the Samis. In any case, you have that going for you…
There are a few other terms that come to mind, but I will refrain. Current ‘progressive liberalism‘ is a metastised version of a few decent ideas going back to the 18th century. At this point it literally looks like a massive mental disorder. (Damn you, Voltaire!)
I think that AK has commented before about the difficulty of societal management being something akin to “flying is like falling without hitting the ground.” I don’t think its very meaningful to judge something because its destination, for example, is POZ; by that same logic in extremis, life is the origin of all death, so we have to eliminate all life to stop death.
I’ll tentatively posit that its a living system that thrives but eventually generates its own agents of destruction, akin to how living systems generate cancer cells. In that sense, the most dangerous aspect of this is the unified noosphere, so that any cancerous(yet effective) memes have unstoppable transmission and burn out the entire species rather than a localized area.
The wisdom of Catholic Church
So Schulz is saying incest is best?
Note that those maps are inverse maps of wealth and development.
To quote another Schulz,
http://hardcorezen1.dogensanghalosan.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/schultz-300×225.jpg
This paper seems to discuss the cultural evolution of the Church and Western institutions, which is an old idea that predates hbd chick.
What hbd chick does is reiterate this idea while positing that genetic evolution or causation took place in place of or alongside the cultural evolution. The genetic evolution is not really explained or adequately hypothesized, but rather just posited from an assumption of sociobiological materialism or determinism.
Being white is not simply about how fair ones skin is, the whitest people are the Aryans, which the Finns are not.
I believe there actually was a brother-sister marriage among the Inca which was recognized by the Church for diplomatic reasons.
I’d say that there are some pretty big differences in the school environment: dress code: East vs. West, but I’m not disagreeing with you. People who are freakish in appearance – have really weird hair (long for a guy, dyed bright colors, dreadlocks, afros…) or large-scale body modifications seem to just be signaling their excessive willingness to embrace the narrative.
I really think there is something to signaling being fairly central to the Left. I recently made the unscientific observation that Leftist bumper stickers seem to take up more space than Rightist ones. Meaning, see a car with a Right one, and you will see a car with two or more Left ones.
Is there a genetic explanation for why Thailand or the Philippines has such a huge number or effeminate males and trannies? Certainly seems a lot larger than 0.6 percent of the male population. And why would the corporate world back the LGBT issue so much since LGBT new up such a miniscule amount of the population, and hence are just a rounding error in the profit of corporations, i mean i can understand why corporations may back mass immigration or civil rights from a profit standpoint considering the large percentage of minority consumer, but why put financial backing behind trannies, which makr about half of one percent of the population?
In terms of genetics, in theory, gayness is very maladaptive. Basically, gays would only have to have slightly less TFR and gay genes would be eliminated.
I’d agree that gayness seems to vary by population, which is difficult to square with the theory of it not being genetic.
The incredible influence of gays is a puzzle. I used to think that they had time to be more political because of lack of family – so they could both rise to positions and spend more time advancing their agenda. Also, a predilection for the arts and thus for setting the culture. But I think it just has high signaling value. Look at the rainbow flag – so many colors! Many gays speak in a lisp – another signal.
Some say that it was AIDS – created sympathy for an unnatural target. But I think it is independent of AIDS. Mostly the signaling value alone – aberration, paired with a population that is good at being its own advocates, because it harnesses the sex drive at its core identity, which isn’t really true of heterosexuals.
In terms of literature, Ancient Greece on some dimensions (or genres) reached a new highest level in history (plays by Aristophanes are almost as sophisticated as any satire produced in 19th century).
Ancient Greek sculpture also reaches a new highest level of sculpture in world history.
Writing of history is also reaching its highest level, by any standards, with Thucydides.
But in terms of other kind of building achievements, Ancient Egypt was far ahead.
And in terms of philosophy – Ancient India may have had an equal level around the same era.
It seems to me that an advantage in time available for career, although small on the individual level, would add up in the aggregate, leading to a heavily gay elite. Then, you would also expect to see a network effect, as disproportionately successful gays begin to support and promote each other, lead into an even gayer elite in the future, etc…
Is there a genetic predisposition among gays for extraversion and generally pleasant and outgoing social traits?
Not in my experience; a lot of them are clearly mentally unstable and act in ways fitting for that(including being pretty avoidant of others). They’re just very clannish, so to speak and unusually heavily clustered in creative industries, where they show a lot of interest in. In a vaguely Damore way, I would say that gays aren’t necessarily better at art, but they definitely show a lot more interest in it and naturally dominate it.
I grew up as part of an artistic collective; percentage that was gay was quite stunning. Also percentage of us that had killed themselves before reaching thirty was quite stunning too. It suggests artistic association both with gayness and fatal mental illness.
How can logic be in extremis? It either is, or it isn’t.
Not true. Everything we know about ancient Greece is post-hoc inventions and rationalizations, invented 2000 years after. There’s more Enlightenment and Voltaire in ‘ancient Greece’ than actual Greece.
The Soviet Communist Party was far to the right of the American Republicans.
Equating leftism with ‘communism’ was leftism’s most successful trick.
I disagree. Domes, vaults, and some types of arches are much more advanced technologies than heaps of stone, even big ones.
Greeks invented logic by themselves. The rest of the world’s philosophical achievements up to that point pale in comparison just relative to that.
I am not a particularly strong supporter of this theory, as both hbd*chick and Jayman would confirm.
I think literacy, IQ, and climate/agriculture explain almost everything. E.g., for Greece: http://www.unz.com/akarlin/ancient-greeks-not-geniuses/
However, the phenomena they describe are real, and certainly cannot have hindered Europe’s success. This must have especially contributed favorably to the Dutch developing most of the institutions of modern capitalism during the 16-17th centuries.
You mean the same Soviet Communist Party that legalized homosexuality, idolized free love, tried to abolish marriage altogether, legalized and promoted abortion, promoted rape of the oppressor class women by the oppressed..?
https://www.rbth.com/history/328265-russian-sexual-revolution
The 1960s Western sexual revolution is exactly the same as the Russian sexual revolution following 1917. If you resurrected Lenin or Trotsky from 1917 and showed them the modern West, they’d be amazed that the West is turning into a communist society without a violent revolution. Later under Stalin the Soviet Union started rejecting the original communist values but the original communism was indeed the same ideology that has taken over the West now.
The only trick that was pulled on the West was American influence equating the right-wing with “free markets” which is why we now have practically Bolshevik parties pretending to be “right-wing”. Any of our monarchists and nationalists from 1917 would find it ridiculous that there are now people who think that capitalism and free markets are “right-wing”. The right-wing was the side of the old agrarian social bonds between royalty, clergy, landowners and peasants and supporting capitalism wasn’t “right-wing”.
An interesting question. I definitely would not say that applies to lesbians. To other gays? Hard to say scientifically. I’ve gotten the impression that they have a brain a bit more like a woman’s, so more verbal. Maybe, they can leverage that skill politically, and it is the secret to part of their power.
I’d guess there are more gay politicians than would be representative. I think part of that is not necessarily their outside appeal but rather their ability to navigate internal party politics, perhaps because of some personality advantage.
What would you say about high verbal IQ social conservatives as a ruling/gentry class, like the Chinese scholar officials? Is there anything comparable in Western history? Maybe the Roman Republic?
Do celibate homosexuals tend to have a different personality profile than other homosexuals?
You might be onto something with the Saamis. The data in those graphics comes from Murdock’s Ethnographic Atlas.
https://archive.org/details/GeorgeP.MurdockEthnographicAtlasUniversityOfPittsburghPress1967
The problem? There are no Finns or Estonians or Karelians or any other closely related Balto-Finnic peoples in the Atlas, at least not in the 1967 version they refer to. Of the Finno-Ugric group besides Hungarians there are Cheremis (an Uralic people with a very distant relation, think English-Ossetian distant) and you guessed it, Saamis, Konkama Lapps of Sweden to be precise. There is indeed a very real chance that “Finland” in those charts in fact is based on habits of some small Saami or Cheremis community, would be great if someone can get the authors to double check before it comes up in peer review.
Greeks – still very basic in logic.
Logic not invented, but discovered – and it was apparently independently to a less basic level than Greeks achieved, in Ancient India (which inspired the 19th century people), and apparently even Ancient China.
Logic only develops still in a basic way from the 18th century – main flourishing of the subject is in 19th and particularly the 20th century. (20th century is really the golden age for logic)
(19th century logic e.g. boolean algebra – is still so simple, and you can learn it in a day).
Technologically Great Pyramids are probably a lot more advanced than anything left from Greek architecture.
And even today, places like Luxor will far more impress visitor, than any Greek sites.
Greek sites are important because we can learn about the Greek culture, literature, history through it – but if you removed all those elements, normal people would not be impressed (if you take philistine tourist, they would be far more impressed by sites of Ancient Egypt).
The special thing about Ancient Greek culture – during its golden age – is not they were particularly intelligent. But that it is a particularly beautiful and creatively/artistically flourishing civilization.
Our emotion in relation to it is aesthetic. It’s the most easy ancient culture to fall in love with (even for people which just read a few books in translation).
They were not unusually intelligent – the kind of typical level of interlocutors, usually aristocratic youth in Athens, in Plato’s dialogues, are of complete retards. The intelligence level would have been vastly below modern levels. When a more intelligent interlocutor arrives (another Sophist philosopher) who can argue some simple ideas, they are seen like a superhero with magical powers.
And it’s even these stupider Greeks which some modern people inspired by Ancient Greece – like Nietzsche – believe represent the more healthy attitudes and noble attitudes of the time. (A lot of what is inspiring in Ancient Greece, is their naive simplicity).
You can compare their religious level – primitive fairy tales compared to the Ancient Indian level.
The influence of gays is perhaps similar to that of another relatively small group (which shall go unnamed) known for above-average intelligence and networking skills.
With regard to intelligence, I assume the following results are still valid:
Very profound. Earth shattering.
Ancient Sparta even had no construction achievements, no impressive sites to visit now, and no intellectual achievements.
And yet Ancient Sparta – it’s almost the most inspiring of all Ancient Greece.
In all seriousness, I would expect it to be lower, based on IQ being partly a proxy for brain health.
I imagine it is so.
maximizes synergy, encourages innovation, puts men on the moon etc
yes, oops
Cleisthenes’ reforms may have had the same effect on Athens as the Church ban on cousin marriage
(in the interval between the break up of the old clan structure and before the new clan structure had solidified)
The Communist Party has changed names, charters and organization structures during the Soviet Union.
The old familiar CPSU existed from 1952 to 1991, and it was a conservative Stalinist party.
1952 was the year when they formally ditched the ‘bolshevik’ moniker, but their turn to the right was much earlier. The USSR had legal abortions from 1920, then banned them in 1936, then made legal again in 1955. Homosexuality was legalized in 1918 (by the liberals, not the bolsheviks, by the way), then criminalized again in 1934.
So the history of leftism in the USSR is a complex one, but in general the trend was more right-leaning than in the USA.
right – it’s more a question of where their conformism is decided – non-WEIRD populations look locally, clan, familial, traditional while WEIRD populations (cos they cooperate on a larger scale) look for a larger scale and more “universal” code decided by a dominant moral authority (which is currently and to our great detriment TV, particularly US TV).
i think virtue-signalling is a side effect of having a more universalist morality – in familial morality virtue = how closely related you are, in a WEIRD society you have to signal your conformity to the dominant morality (and of course sociopaths have to signal the hardest to disguise themselves).
what people signal is decided by the dominant moral authority hence the similarity in behavior but difference in detail between puritan and SJW.
Talha,
I’d be curious what your thoughts are regarding cousin marriage in Saudi Arabia.
My own are that the Saudis clearly know it is bad, but are afraid to ban it for fear of being deposed. They may be scoundrels, but in my view, independent of that, it would be pretty difficult to do any other meaningful reforms if their fear is justified, and I think it is.
Of course, they should still ban it, but maybe they are trying to bring it below some threshold first through weaker discouragements, like genetic screening.
if one explanation or part explanation is hormone imbalance in the womb then maybe those countries have a lot of natural estrogens somewhere in their diet
cheap labor
(if they only adopted the diversity part of SJW ideology it would be obvious they were doing it for cheap labor so they have to adopt the whole package)
There’s so much signaling in nature that I think there may be a spectrum of genetic propensity in humans to signal, and if there is then it may be part of an evolutionary strategy to help organize the group. Leftism is a group power dynamic strategy in my view, mainly built around leveraging group power to redistribute from individuals or families.
Any strategy that was successful at gaining resources is probably hardwired into some people, and proto-Leftism probably was, in some circumstances. I think it may be mal-adaptive today because of technology having removed some of the natural checks and balances.
i wonder if it’s safe enough for hubchik to come out yet?
World’s first symbolic logic – from Ancient India, invented by grammarian Panini, and more formal than any logic developed in Ancient Greece (which are incredibly basic stuff).
I can’t find any tutorial on Panini (just people showing it’s similar as Boolean algebra).
http://doc.gold.ac.uk/aisb50/AISB50-S13/AISB50-S13-Kadvany-paper.pdf
Here biography of Panini (520 BC-460 BC), which claims it is the same as modern systems (but with no tutorial)
http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Panini.html
Some media coverage
https://medium.com/@dmitrypavluk/we-should-thank-sanskrit-for-the-21st-century-e771b6c12f14
Those aren’t my folk and have a different culture than where I came from. Pakistan is quite into cousin marriage also. Personally, I think any level of cousin marriage beyond a 10-15% is not a good trajectory for society.
They are going to have to go through the ulema first. They will have to explain the reasons why something that is permitted by the Shariah should be outlawed. They cannot make a moral case, but they could try to make one as far as something that is necessary for the benefit/health of society.
There is no need to hit the problem with a sledgehammer. If they can help reduce the rate, that will hopefully be all that is necessary. The rate is definitely too high right now.
Agreed, I think genetic counseling for prospective marriage partners is a very beneficial thing when concerns about detriment to offspring is a real concern.
Peace.
yes i think that’s exactly what it is – and it’s very effective when the controlling moral authority has adaptive goals.
its big weakness is if the controlling moral authority is captured by people with maladaptive goals then all that group synergy and hyper-efficiency gets channeled into self-destructive behavior.
Somebody here wrote:
It occurred to me that this may more apply to claims coming from India which are being pulled like rabbits from magician’s hat. This may include this guy Panini. Any historical narrative is a construction that has a political function.
I think it is possible there is even some influence, as De Morgan, Babbage and Boole were obsessed with Ancient India.
If you see Wikipedia article for De Morgan, it says:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustus_De_Morgan#London_University/
For Babbage, it says:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Babbage#Influence
–
About Ancient India itself – I know almost nothing, so not a person who can comment on it.
There’s a book which makes the claim that there was intense exchange and mutual influence between ancient Greek and ancient Indian philosophy:
https://www.amazon.de/Shape-Ancient-Thought-Comparative-Philosophies/dp/1581152035
Haven’t read it myself. Maybe you can and tell us if it’s plausible.
These citations about Mary Bool and others are completely inconsequential.
Very profound. Earth shattering.
The way the results are presented in the abstract is indeed very awkward, perhaps reflecting the authors’ non-native English. Looking at the IQ categories reported in the study it turns out that “average” is 91-110, while “above average” is 111 and above. So 50% had IQs above 110.
The averages for the 4 “pathological” groups [article published in 1974] were:
non-feminine homosexuals– 110.4
feminine homosexuals — 113.7
genetically male transsexuals — 106.6
hypogonadotropic eunuchoids — 109.7
There is some evidence that some disorders such a hyperfrontality contribute to intelligence.
But there’s no symbolic logic in Ancient Greece, or subtle findings, in this area.
Greatest philosopher, Plato, really has almost nothing to say in this area (except some common sense).
Aristotle just seems to have categorized basic common sense reasoning processes.
If I was in the 1850s, and writing a symbolic logic, I would be more interested in Ancient India (whether they have created something more interesting).
History of logic is interesting as an area where there was almost no progress for thousands of years. Until slowly from around the beginning of the 19th century.
Yet by beginning of the 20th century, it’s one of the most fashionable topics in the world and they are making large advancements.
There’s not direct link in the work (India could have not existed, and Boole would still write his logic). The stuff I now found out pioneered by De Morgan seems very simple in 2018, and which are covered in the first pages of any textbook. These guys did not need any historical inspiration to develop this.
But the fact is, if you were in the middle of the 19th century, there’s nothing interesting in this subject in Ancient Greece, but the possibility there was more advanced development in logic in Ancient India, and that seems recognized by these guys.
I would not be surprised if Aristotle’s influence, especially after theologians have become obsessed with it, was even oppressive on the development of the topic. It’s an area where historically development arrives much later than other topics – especially considering its intuitive simplicity by comparison, it is historically strange how late it is.
BS. Stop. Nothing compares to the developments in logic by Greeks. Just forget about it. You are just parroting anti-Western deconstructionist ideas. Anything is good to bring the Greeks down. Including giving ancient Egypt to Nigerians and claiming that Aristotle get everything from Alexandria library which btw was established until after his death. You are much more reasonable than Bliss but are serving the same master. Jews after 2500 years still can’t recover from humiliation and ridicule they suffered from their encounter with a superior civilization of Greece. The deconstructionism of Greek accomplishments all stems from this hurt feeling experience.
What developments in logic? There’s no symbolic logic. And nothing interesting from Ancient Greek logic in textbooks, beyond a small box on the first page, repeating common sense (syllogisms).
Neither is there anything directly from Ancient India. But it seems were a little more (although still not much) development.
And the people who created the field in 19th century, had this sense according to their wife.
This is funniest comment. Utu not everything is about Jews (although I can predict every discussion with you will end up with Jews).
In fact it is boring when every topic somehow is about Jews, even for someone who is interested in that topic. (i.e. actual Jews).
Jewish culture itself became Hellenized, and any ruins of their buildings in Israel, I have visited personally and can post photos of from my phone – it’s all just Greek columns.
Jewish logicians do not exist until the 20th century and they were secular men.
How look Ancient Jewish ruins I visited in Israel.
Photo by myself in Israel earlier this year.
(Wonder what this text says)
https://i.imgur.com/mVE44oP.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/t1BqrWp.jpg
A good discussion here: https://circulosemiotico.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/historyofformall00boch.pdf#page=450 with a handy summary on page 446 (of the text; that’s page 480 of the pdf). Indian logic represents a formalization of thinking but with significant disadvantages compared to Western logic, most notably the complete absence of variables.
You are a simpleton ignoramus and proud of it. Perhaps you should stay with subjects you know something about like expensive shoes your uncle collects.
But if you want open your obscurantist mind of the post-sovok child of privilege you can read what actually Aristotle contribution to logic are here:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-logic/
And take a peek at Prior Analytics
https://books.google.com/books?id=E2xhDwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=prior+analytics&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwirsNHZlbbcAhWSc98KHRn5CaEQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=prior%20analytics&f=false
Writing insults is not helping to make me agree with you, although nice to see we can change the topic from Jews.
I can still remember textbook of mathematical logic for computer science. Around first page – that Aristotle’s logic extremely limited,- quantified syllogisms, relied on two premises and a conclusion.
Aristotle’s system did not even include basic properties of disjunctions [(a v b) & ¬a) ⇒ b]
I.e. not accepted until medieval times (and of course writing any symbols are not until the 19th century).
Entire textbooks are only covering things invented in the 19th century and 20th century up to set theory.
Now there may be revisionist articles by historians of philosophy that discover interesting things in Aristotle, but this is not symbolic logics (some 2200 years later), which is when progress began again.
There is no symbolic logic in Aristotle or Ancient Greece. All symbolic logics we are using in any practical purposes, is from 19th century onwards.
Question whether Ancient India had anything more complicated is open (it seems there is no symbolic logic in Ancient India either, but someone argues grammarian Panini has some conclusions rediscovered in the 20th century).
–
The interesting question raised is why logic developed so late (only in the 19th century), after 2200 years.
Influence of Aristotle (a great proto-logician for his time, but obsolete one for the modern world) could have been even oppressive. In the 18th century, there are people – like Kant – still saying logic is complete because Aristotle has written about it (yet the subject has not begun to develop its interesting aspects or even written symbolically yet).
By beginning of the 20th century, it suddenly is one of the most fashionable topics in the world (this is probably also a symptom that it has been delayed relative to other topics).
Thanks – it’s difficult to understand this text.
But the conclusion seems that it is less developed than Greek development of logic in some areas (?).
But that
It’s for relations, exactly why you need write down symbols.
Once they start doing this in the 19th century, it becomes very clear they can write the relation as a predicate and with variables, inside a quantifier. Mathematical logic arrives very late in history though, considering that even the Ancient world is becoming aware of these topics.
What’s the basis for this claim?
Did Yuri Gagarin only manage to orbit the Earth and not land on the moon because Russia was Orthodox?
Cleisthenes increased the number of tribes from 4 to 10.
What is there to disjunction that Aristotle would not know? Would he think F v F might be T? Or that F v T might not be T? Or that T v T might be F? Get real. The law of excluded middle is central to Aristotle.
You seem to have a fetish of symbolic logic. There is really nothing to it. It is trivial. Boolean algebra as Boole has conceive it is a waste of time. A search for foundations of mathematic in logic was abandoned. Frege’s program was abandoned as well as that of Russel’s and Whitehead’s. Axiomatic Peano’s approach and Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory were adopted as foundations of mathematics from which whole mathematics can be built using Aristotelian logic. There is no other logic used to build the whole of our knowledge.
However just as Aristotle would make qualifications that some logical reasoning can’t be used to predict some future events, some mathematicians raised the question whether the law of excluded middle could be used in all possible situations. For example L.E.J. Brouwer advocated that only constructive proofs should be used and reductio ad absurdum proofs only when in principle a constructive proof could be thought of.
Symbolic logic and truth tables that every undergrad is exposed to in computer engineering or programming class is trivial. There is nothing to it. This is just a convenient tool which is not used when people do actual thinking. Yeah, that’s a ticket – actual thinking! Try it.
industrial revolution started at the epicenter of this process – correlation is possibly causation
right and in the process of changing the system banned marriage within the original tribes
No such thing. The Russian Urals were heavily industrialized back in Peter I’s time. (Complete with factories and a huge proletarian class.) But the industrial system was present in Russia even earlier. The first Russian industrialist was born in 1488. (Stroganov, by the way, like the eponymous beef.)
Russia’s industry was almost always tied with the state-sponsored military-industrial complex, though, so Western historians ignore this huge chunk of history. (Apparently, unless consumer goods are involved, it’s not “real” industry according to self-serving Anglo historians. Go figure.)
nonsense lenin opposed free love.
Your text is not convincing, either. I am not too interested in IQ debates, and within, as well without that paradigm, I don’t see how one can explain the birth of Greek culture that had revolutionized the world & is, in many respects, the basis of global civilization.
First a few points: I’m writing in a politically correct notation (BCE/CE to avoid our bias BC/AD); I know that, theoretically, one cannot “prove” that a product of one culture is “higher” or “better” than some work from another, simply because there in no common referential frame (even within one culture, there is no “proof”- as George Steiner had said in his magisterial “Tolstoy or Dostoevsky”, if you don’t see that Tolstoy’s “Anna Karenina” is greater, more human & richer work than Flaubert’s “Mme Bovary” (the same topic, female adultery)- then you are just deaf to mental-emotional-spiritual “tonalities” & nothing more can be said about it).
In the case of old Greeks, we may summarize their achievement from 700-200 BCE (of course, and later, but I just don’t won’t to mess with Christianity, Romans, whatnot…). The only rivals are Chinese, Indian, Middle Eastern & Egyptian civilizations.
In the field of sciences, Greeks invented science as a unified field of knowledge. Mathematical proof & systematic scientific thinking are their achievements, as testified by Euclid’s “Elements”, one of the most influential books ever written. Archimedes with his many contributions (among them integral calculus) remains among top 3-5 world mathematicians, while Pythagoras is basically a god of mathematics and Eratosthenes (along with Indians, the calculated the earth’s circumference) is a father of geography….. All “ethnic” math traditions lag behind Greek, even Indian one, which had had some uncanny advantages that later Europeans have modified & developed.
Also heliocentric system (only Greeks) etc. etc. Chinese medicine was probably more developed (see Needham’s magnum opus), but Greek one was not bad- actually, perhaps better than Egyptian & close to Chinese and Indian.
Philosophy. All others have a limited range of thought & and are mostly commenters of their sacred texts. In Greece, we have truly different schools of thought that cover what we now call materialism, objective and subjective idealism, skepticism, stoicism, empiricism, relativism, philosophy of language, political philosophy, aesthetics, psychology, elements of social philosophy, ethics,… It is true that other great civilizations have elements of that (Arthashastra, Chu Hsi, ..)- but there is nowhere such a wealth of ideas that later developed in global world- evolution (all Ionian cosmologies are evolutionary), democracy, fascism, eugenics, physical education, feminism, complete education for body, emotions & mind (Plato), mathematized cosmos (Pythagoras), cosmopolitanism (stoics, but Socrates, too), intellectual questioning of slavery, logic (Plato, then finally Aristotle), ….
Literature. Apart from great epics of India, which are culturally different, evidently Greek literature has some universal masterpieces that remain world classics, especially tragedy (which was unknown outside of Greek world); lyric poetry cannot be compared with Chinese or Hindu because these genres are too entangled with the structure of language.
As for history, Thucydides remains a classic historian, not inferior to any other anywhere & anytime.
Visual arts. Putting aside early stylizations, it is evident that Greek sculpture is so superior that Chinese & Indian & Assyrian are basically a joke when we put them alongside Greek achievement:
Chinese sculpture
https://www.google.com/search?q=chinese+sculpture&client=firefox-b&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwie7JqlvbfcAhXPZFAKHbXMBVEQ_AUICigB&biw=1480&bih=712
Indian sculpture
https://www.google.com/search?q=indian+sculpture&client=firefox-b&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiLpoy-vbfcAhVMPFAKHTBBBhsQ_AUICigB&biw=1480&bih=712
Greek sculpture
https://www.google.com/search?q=greek+sculpture&client=firefox-b&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwik2OnZvbfcAhULLlAKHSNNDlkQ_AUICigB&biw=1480&bih=712
Of course, everyone is free to disagree, but others are short, fat, comic, without individuality, clumsy,… Whatever.
And if you add Alexander the Great, what then remains of others?
Greece is the basis of the Western culture (unfortunately, and the gay thing), and Western culture is the world global culture; Greek super-achievers still remain somewhere on the top of many disciplines: Phidias, Plato, Aristotle, Homer, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Pythagoras, Archimedes, Hippocrates, Euclid, Alex the Great, Thucydides, … They created scientific terminology which is in use even in modern disciplines (chromodynamics, topology, genetics, ..).
What could have been done more?
I’d have to agree here, pound for pound, the Greeks produced more and probably the most varied and most influential in terms of mathematics, literature, etc. Other cultures produced a lot as well, but did not have as wide an influence. A lot of this of course due to the fact that the inheritors of Greek influences would go on to conquer much of the world and spread that inherited culture, as can be seen in things like the architecture of capital buildings as far as South America.
And they set pretty high standards for others to meet as far as quality.
Pretty phenomenal.
Peace.
the agricultural revolution that was the foundation for the industrial revolution started in and around the same anglo-dutch epicenter many centuries earlier
he may have opposed it but not successfully cos the full poz was applied to the USSR after the revolution – it was only stopped after the consequences became too obvious to ignore
Did you even read my post? There is no such thing as an “industrial revolution”. It’s just a pile of self-serving malarkey by Anglo historians about why their industry is “real” industry and industry from other countries doesn’t “really count”.
Comparatively speaking, England was a latecomer. Sweden and then Russia were there first.
Come on.
You don’t think there’s anything notable about the steam engine, flying shuttle, spinning frame, mechanized loom, or Bessemer converter?
All invented in England, and in a relatively short time period.
The main argument against an English industrial revolution I’d think would be an earlier one in the Low Countries based on the intensive exploitation of peat and wind for power. This industrial efflorescence stalled after the Dutch had dug up and burned a tenth of their country.
The Low Countries also never mechanized textile production, nor did they invent or make use of heat engines (partly because their mining engineering was more advanced, thus they had no need of engines to pump out water).
Euclid’s Elements is modern. One could use it as a textbook in school. Also, all mathematical theorizing (meta-mathematics) begins there. The axiomatic approach. How to construct mathematical theory.
I agree with most of your comment. But with respect to they created scientific terminology which is in use even in modern disciplines it is more that the people who created these disciplines in the 18th or 19th centuries, or earlier in some cases, used the Greek language as a source for root words.
Is it just me, or do the Indian sculptures seem so much richer, more complex, more philosophical, and more spiritual?
The Greek sculpture seem to merely glorify the physical body – to glorify the physical world.
Plato would not approve.
I don’t. These are incremental inventions based on concepts that existed for a long time already. The only (more or less) revolutionary invention was the conveyor belt, but that wasn’t invented in Britain.
This is a Russian factory, early 18th century:
Russia used hydropower extensively in that time, though. This
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/%D0%93%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B4%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%BF%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B4_2010_%281%29.JPG
is actually an artificial lake created in the early 18th century by the dam that provided power to the factory.
There’s actually a lot of Greek influence in Indian art, stemming from this period: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Buddhist_art
Right, Ghandaran art, but that was limited to northwest India and Afghanistan.
There was even a Greek Buddhist kingdom in the region for a while, a successor state to Alexander the great. I find those lonely and isolated Greek kingdoms near central Asia fascinating.
I actually think there was significant cultural exchange between India and the ancient world over many centuries – much of early Greek thought seems clearly influenced by India, while Mahayana Buddhism seems to have been influenced by early Christianity, in a kind of cultural circle.
Still, the distinctive Greek contribution seems to have been the glorification of the body and the physical world – this is not the entirety of Greek culture, to be sure, and Greek culture was incredibly complex and syncretistic – but physical glorification seems to have been unique to Greece, and was the element most eagerly picked up later by the northern Europeans and developed into our modern world.
If the Greeks were indeed Aryans, then it seems the distinctive Aryan genius has been the glorification of physicality.
Which is not to say that Aryans are capable of nothing higher – merely that, left to itself, the Aryan genius seems to descend into mere physicality.
The Jewish and Asian genius, left to itself, is perhaps overly spiritual, and needs a dose of Aryan physicality to balance things out.
The Enlightenment seems to have been the native Aryan genius asserting itself against the domination of Eastern spirituality – and the result is the modern worlds glorification of all things physical, which everyone is beginning to agree has been a disaster.
Perhaps the next stage in the evolution of world culture is to once again unite Aryan physicality with Eastern spirituality in a balanced and healthy while?
His proposal of law of excluded middle uses a disjunction (and a lot of his arguments, in all his works, use on disjunctions).
Disjunctions themselves are understood by most three year olds, and everyone who understands the meaning of the word “or”. And logical processes according to disjunctions itself, may possibly even exist in corvids, octopuses, and cleverer dogs.
Aristotle was a genius – of course he knows the implications of word “or” and many of his famous theories rely on reasoning using it. But it’s not part of his syllogisms, and above syllogism itself was not introduced until early medieval times. (This syllogism first mentioned in Boethius – De Hypotheticis Syllogismis, where he has to rewrite it awkwardly as a conditional to make it match Aristotle’s constrictive schema and lack of disjunction).
See example above. Add the symbol “v” and you don’t have to be Boethius to rewrite this syllogism in Aristotle’s schema, from conditional, and to awkwardly redescribe a logical step everyone uses.
There’s nothing intellectual to use symbols – symbols are just a tool.
For example, Aristotle has endless difficult discussions about relations. Nowadays we usually describe relations most easily in terms of sets – each type of relation you can describe as a set in half a line, you can drink a litre of beer, read it again (or rewrite it as a diagram if you prefer), and still university undergraduate student will be less muddled about how the different logical relations work, than one of the greatest geniuses of the Ancient world in his famous text.
People are now doing this in programming languages, who have not had even a basic course in set theory at university.
Likewise, I can go faster than Usain Bolt, not through any special ability – all I need is a tool like a car.
Don’t confuse finger pointing at the moon, for the moon itself.
Logical reasoning is found in all humans, and arguably predates human race and could be observed in some animals..
Logic and study of logic are two different things, and you don’t need the latter to use the former.
In the Ancient World, Aristotle is one of the first people to point his finger at this moon, and see it as topic interesting to study. From a historical perspective, it’s extremely impressive what has done Aristotle, but not from a practical one for a modern man.
He is able to describe simple patterns of reasoning, while other areas (like clear reasoning about relations) cannot be done in his format.
Philosophers and theologians are subsequently using syllogisms to write their arguments more clearly, but you could remove this use of Aristotle’s format, and their arguments would not be different. E.g. Hume sometimes uses syllogisms to express his argument, sometimes not (you could rewrite the former as the latter, and it would not make any less sense – simply be less clear).
It’s only around 19th and 20th century when people start to study logic in a symbolic way, rapidly progressing and for first time discovering things which are not intuitively known, such as, you mention above in a larger narrative, in relation to maths – impossibility of logicist program without axioms. But also many other subtle discoveries discovered about how logic works.
Main practical benefit of the work is not as independent field of discovery, but simply as a practical and engineering tool (which we use with no interesting relation to real maths), but which is powerful precisely because of simplicity and clarity of using symbols, and which allows very mentally ordinary people to build complicated and consistent systems.
Earlier Greek sculpture is not. But with, around time of Kritios in the 5th century, is the first kind of truly modern and realistic seeming sculpture – this usually seen by art historians as a decisive progress, which was not found in any earlier or contemporary civilizations.
Also, the law of excluded middle and the law of non-contradiction are logically invalid, as Bertrand Russell and others have shown and as Indian logicians have long known, and have probably functioned as a mental straitjacket on the European intellect despite their usefulness to engineering.
Aristotelian logic is best appreciated in relation to the general Greek attitude to the physical world, as quite useful for engineering even if invalid and not exhaustive.
Gandhara was one of the most important regions of India at the period; it is, for instance, most probably where Panini came from, and so its influence on general Indian art was probably substantial. Not being an art critic I’m not going to argue the degree of influence, though.
Vedic religion is practically the epitome of Aryanism. Even the Buddha came from one of the great Aryan clans, though you can say he was influenced by native traditions in some way.
I concede your point, it is indeed an innovation – but whether it is an advance depends on whether you view the purpose of art as “realism”.
That is a long discussion – one can perhaps agree that Greek art introduced the glorification of the physical – what you mean by realism.
Value judgements are an individual matter.
I’ve always admired the Dying Gaul. (Roman copy, though it is) Surely, such a powerful depiction of mortality counts for something spiritual?
Such a masterpiece does it seem to me, it is amazing to think that it was ever buried.
Egyptian art can be remarkably realistic: https://art.thewalters.org/detail/35906 (that’s just one example I found searching at random).
Greek sculpture is certainly a development and one taken to a very high pitch, but it’s obviously untrue to say either that it came from nowhere or that it was not copied elsewhere.
Which would be your preferred sex partner: this
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/38/03/dc/3803dc0aafc977176ed3f1c8a9b31627–india-art-rajasthan-india.jpg
or this one
https://previews.123rf.com/images/orgasm4n/orgasm4n1112/orgasm4n111200001/11479263-cracked-face-of-female-greek-sculpture.jpg ?
I know what would be my choice….
As for spirituality, there is nothing evidently spiritual in Hindu sculptures. They’re just fat.
It’s not just realism, but also gives sense of a much more subtle aesthetic and sophisticated breakthrough in the 5th century .
http://www.mallonart.com/about/about/enlarge/pics/HumanFigure/Part01/kritiosBoy.jpg
Compared to earlier Greek sculpture.
6th century works still not much different from Egyptian.
http://kemetexpert.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/NY-kouros-MMA-450×600.jpg
Late 6th century, more realism, but still nothing like the same aesthetics.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/04/0006MAN-Kouros2.jpg
I would agree that Greek artistic influence probably was substantial at some point – it may even have provided the primary stimulus for Indian art, as early Buddhism was opposed to depictions of the Buddha, like Islam.
However, Indian art at its apogee was substantially different from Greek art, and more similar to medieval Christian art.
Of course, Greek art was substantially influenced by Egyptian art.
Vedic religion was, especially in its mature and sophisticated stage, highly syncretistic – certainly it did not remain merely at the level of Aryan nature Gods, as it started out. Buddhism also, of course.
The Aryan genius can fly very high when it is open to foreign influences which correct its fundamentally materialistic orientation – indeed, Greek culture cannot be viewed without reference to the vast Oriental world it stood on the edge of and received constant influences from.
Remember Herodotus and his “Greeks are as children compared to the Egyptians”.
So I’m not trying to knock Aryans – the Eastern genius needs balance in its own way and may be too “ethereal”.
I am trying to indicate possible courses for the next stage of world culture, and to highlight the possible origins of modern materialism, which is merely materialism ramified throughout every area of human life, in patterns that seem endemic to Aryan culture whenever it’s genius asserts itself without foreign influences.
Aryan culture may have an extremely important contribution to make to world culture – the emphasis on the physical – and other cultures may need this corrective balance, but it is worthwhile trying to understand its deficiencies in its pure form.
And the sane can be said of any native culture in its pure form.
I am also sympathetic to the Dying Gaul, and the Laocoon, but these are Hellenistic and a departure from the “classical” phase – more emotion and spirituality was beginning to penetrate Greek art, in contrast to the austerity of classical Greek art.
Early Ancient Indian culture was Aryan – the word is just Sanskrit for “noble”.
Contemporary era of Vedas texts, which was written by Aryans settled in Northern India – it is only Mycenaean civilization in Greece.
Much later, classical Greece (which is the era we all fall in love with) – they are writing in Sanskrit things like Bhagavad Gita and Ramayana (i.e. books you can find in the bookshop and modern people still like reading translated).
I have bought book of Vedic hymns in translation – it’s very primitive religious hymns (and not something modern man will enjoy). But much later texts in India, contemporaneous with Classical Greece, are also obviously sophisticated literature – things like Bhagavad Gita.
It seems that you are referring to technical advances – and I would agree with that.
The Greeks did seem to make large advances in artistic technique, as in so much else. As is befitting a culture whose primary orientation is physical.
But the spiritual and aesthetic quality – aesthetic understood as not merely excellence of technique but as capturing something indefinable – of Greek sculpture does not seem superior to Indian sculpture but merely to have a different focus, the glorification of the physical.
Later Indian sculpture displays dazzling technique, but it may be that Greek technique played a role here.
Yes, the earliest Indian culture was Aryan – but it is quite primitive and not the glorious Indian culture of later times.
That culture is syncretistic. I don’t discount or downplay the Aryan contribution – but the pure Aryan element in Indian culture seems to be pagan nature Gods – a focus on the physical.
Later, together with the native Indian genius, something utterly different emerges that is one of the glories of world culture.
How can I judge which sculpture I would rather have sex with – one is just a face.
Indian sculpture is religious – it is necessarily spiritual. You may not think it is successful in transmitting spiritual qualities – but that is its explicit focus, as the explicit focus of Greek culture is the glories of the body.
The great Buddhist and Hindu temples in India, as well as Angkor Wat (Indian artists), and the great structures in Java, are dazzling examples of religious art on a vast scale and have no parallels in ancient Greece.
The temple at Paestum cannot rival Angkor Wat – but I think the only real agreement possible here is the focus of the respective traditions – one the body and realism, the other spirituality and idealism.
What one prefers depends on ones assessment of the modern world and ones stance towards materialism.
And that is a seperate discussion, and s long one.
I think you are confusing words.
Aryans who settled in Northern India, and wrote Vedic hymns – were a people and culture, originally from Andronovo (nowadays central Asia) – and their root would be similar to nomads who had settled earlier in Ancient Persia, with many overlapping words in the Sanskrit and Ancient Persian languages.
Ancient Greek people and culture are highly divergent civilization, which experiences enormous culture shock when later Persians start expanding West direction in 6th century. (And well what happens between Greeks and Persians in the next century is one of the most epic episodes in history).
Hey, Karlin just told me that that same factory is still operational today, and is still the economic hub of the county. He also said that they have increased productivity 3.4% since the 1800’s.
OK. That is what you are trying to do. What I was trying to do was to suggest that it is unfair to compare Greek art unfavorably to Indian art because the latter is in some degree a development on it in a different direction.
I believe Greeks are supposed to be Aryans as well, though, and to have migrated from the same region – the Doric invasions from the North, etc.
I see.
Well, even if Indian art was based on Greek technique when it reached its maturity it had quite a different focus than Greek art, different themes, etc.
So its reasonable to compare that aspect of the two traditions, but ones judgement will depend on ones values.
No, Greeks are not from Andronovo (although it would be hilarious we could claim Ancient Greek culture as part of heritage of the Soviet Union).
Genetically, Greeks are now known to be descendants of Mycenaeans.
Even Mycenaean Linear B is an Indo-European language, and all these languages derive from Yamnaya. Andronovo was descended from similarly (contemporaneous with Yamnaya and related to) Afanasevans in modern Siberia
But transmission of languages to peoples without languages, does not require settlement and invasion of peoples (although this can be one process of transmission, as it was in Ancient India).
Greeks (descended primarily from Mycenaeans) are typical Southern European people, with some smaller gene flow from Caucasus and Northern Europe.
There are indeed many crazy claims made by our nationalists about the so-called achievements of ancient Indians, but Panini and his contributions are about as incontrovertible as you can get. If you believe in Socrates and Plato (and believe they were Greek), you ought to believe in Panini (and believe that he was Indian). The guy wasn’t plucked out of obscurity through archaeological and linguistics innovations in the 19th century. He’s been known in India on a continuous basis over the ages. Our civilization’s preservation of the Sanskrit language and various philosophical texts composed in that language has been pitch-perfect, and Panini is one the people to thank for that.
Cool article here:
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/08/greeks-really-do-have-near-mythical-origins-ancient-dna-reveals
Article believes Mycenaeans themselves had a small portion of Siberian origin (4% to 16%), which could explain Indo-European features in Linear B. (Dorians probably just ethnic Greeks).
Interesting.
I have myself long thought that the “Aryan” race theory based merely on similarity of language made zero sense. Its like as if some future scholar decides Hong Kong was a racial branch of the Anglo Saxon family lol.
As all sensible, rational, and common sense things this was widely ignored in our culture because science or something.
Well, if Greeks weren’t Aryans, perhaps I can limit my argument to Europeans only. The Greek focus on the physical and material was later picked up by northern Europeans and became the basis of modern culture.
Now, perhaps the Western focus on the physical needs to be balanced out by the Eastern focus on the spiritual, and vice versa.
So perhaps europe and had a significant role to play in the evolution of world culture – but it is time to move on, and remaining stuck in the purely physical phase is destructive for everyone.
I think this distinction “spiritual”, not “spiritual”, does not make sense.
Vedic hymns (most “hippy” literature of the Ancient World) are product, as we know, of settlers from Andronovo. So how are the settlers, originally from Andronovo, not a spiritual component in Ancient India?
Also the concept that Greek inheritance is not spiritual or superstitious, is a belief of modern Europe – and derives from later Hellenization in Ancient Israel (in which Hellenization became associated with modernization and urbanization – see my photo above I take earlier this year, in ruins of wealthy Ancient Jewish house in Israel, where they write on the floor in Greek), and the belief was later transmitted to Christianity .
In the 19th century, writers like Nietzsche (who was extremely immersed in the culture as a philologist) are very critical of this view of Greeks civilization, and sees it simply as a projection of modern Europe onto the admired Ancient civilization.
Reading again texts of 5th century Athens – can see an extremely religious society (although in only religious terms, not as religiously sophisticated as Ancient India of the same era).
The Vedic hymns are not generally considered any kind of spiritual highpoint, but rather as primitive pagan hymns to nature Gods. This later developed into an elaborate spirituality with the Upsnishads, etc.
But of course, the original Vedic settlers did make a spiritual contribution, and together with local and foreign elements participated in the building up of one of the world’s great spiritualities.
As for Greek culture, it was incredibly complex and certainly had a spiritual component of a very high order – from the Pythagorean to Plato and beyond. I am certainly not claiming the Greek tradition lacked a spiritual component of a very high order.
I am merely stating that the unique and distinctive element in Greek culture – that no one else seems to have done – is a focus on and glorification of the physical, especially the body.
And that northern Europeans later seized on precisely this element as the most important element in Greek culture and not its very interesting spiritual trafition, and made it the basis of modern culture.
Nietzsche distinguished between archaic Greeks and classical Greeks – and like myself, he thought Greek rationalism introduced by figures like Socrates and Euripides killed off all the vital elements of archaic Greek culture and led to a general depression of spirits, loss of cultural vitality, and even a tendency to suicide – exactly what we are seeing today, under the influence of the exact same Greek impulse.
Yes, 5th century Athens was of course extremely religious, much like America today is both the most religious western country and the epicenter of materialism – in other words, elite cultural opinion in both places was distinguished by attitudes that diverged sharply from the masses. 5th century Athens was also a time of great ferment – in other words, it was a transitional period, and elements of spiritual and cultural vitality coexisted with a growing decadence – so there would be sone outstanding figures of immense spiritual vitality such as Sophocles and Pericles while on the horizon dark clouds were gathering in the form of the simplistic rationalism of a Socrates. Such, at any rate, was Nietzsches take.
All Ancient cultures would privilege physical and body – with limited sanitation (although improving with the Romans greatly), without modern medicine, and with your city’s survival depending on physical fitness of its young men.
As for Ancient India – we can see even under a caste system, for brahmins who do not fight, and yet for whom a lot of spiritual exercises are inseparated from physical exercises.
A difference with the Greeks in their golden age, from earlier and contemporaneous societies, is amazingly good sculpture showing their physical ideals, and highly sophisticated literature describing ordinary things about their society which allows us to know it much better than other earlier/contemporaneous ancient societies (other earlier/contemporaneous societies are only writing mythology, which don’t tell us anything about how they lived in ordinary life), and intercity competition (sometimes even sublimated into sport).
Viewpoint of Nietzsche is very cool, but in an earlier article he attributes miracle of Greece to intercity competition, and its fatal end to the end of this competition. Whether emergence of Socrates and dialectics is a symptom of decline (and embodied in his physical ugliness), as he writes in later books? I have not read enough literature of Ancient Greece to write comment.
I have read/seen plays only of Sophocles and Aristophanes, both geniuses of different kinds. There is vast difference between approach of the two authors . But whether this reflects their generational difference (and loss of piety), or difference of the personality of the authors and their genres (tragedy in Sophocles and comedy in Aristophanes)? (Aristophanes is very irreverential and sophisticated, and can give the reader a sense that he is reading something from the19th century AD, not 5th century BC).
Materialism is only bad when it becomes your only arbiter for decision-making.
I like to counter-signal against people whinging about “consumerism”.
Am I supposed to be upset about more and better products being available?
I get great satisfaction from purchasing and using the very best products.
Scandinavia, Holland etc are all part of that Hajnal region – “Anglo” in this context really means the whole NW region.
I think despite your rejection of the cultural framework of your society, you have not escaped it.
For whatever reason, I think, in America it is popular to associate cultural traits and habits with large-scale continents or religions.
Saying ”white people” or ”Jews” or ”Asians” as like this or that.
But you do not make more refined distinctions which could make your arguments at least somewhat plausible.
I hear you often talk about ‘whites’ or ‘muslims’ or ‘Jews’ or ‘Asians’, but I don’t see you really comprehend the differences between Askenazim vs Mizrahim, secular Jews vs religious Jews, NW Europeans vs S Europeans vs E Europeans vs Americans of European descent, East Asians vs Indians vs South-East Asians etc. very much.
Nor changes in cultural periods.
Perhaps then you would not make statements like this:
Although perhaps your worldview is tinted by the type of cultural endgoal you seem to desire?
If you genuinely enjoy the products you buy, that is probably a pretty good indication that you are not an out-of control materialist. The problem is buying products that don’t bring you joy for the sake of keeping up with the Joneses, or worse, because you’re trying to compensate for something deeper that you are missing.
Lol, I try to visualize what history classes must be like in American school, for Americans to so commonly form this way of seeing the world. Even in New York Times, somehow journalists are always trying to reduce a whole world and history to some few simple American categories. It’s not particular beliefs, but a complete American world outlook somehow absorbed in their youth, through which everything is later processed.
But at least from documentary evidence in the latest Spiderman film – kids are studying serious physics and chemistry.
Like much of Greek culture, Greek sculpture (and architecture) is indebted to Egypt. So is Greek religion, philosophy, mathematics etc. If Greece is the mother of western civilization (which it is) then Egypt is it’s grandmother.
The Greek statues in that link are more realistic compared to the indian and chinese, but they are monotonous in their infatuation with naked athletic bodies. The Chinese and Indian sculpture is far more diverse and interesting.
Good point!
Peace.
Camille Paglia has written superlatively on this subject. Maybe one of the few women writers of the 20th century (or in general, really) that can be considered top-shelf reading.
She addresses the counter point of lesbians and women generally being artistically talentless in comparison to homosexuals and men generally also. As a dike herself, I imagine she knows what she’s talking about.
Captured German scientists had less to do with the Soviet Space programme than the US one but there was plenty of German technology involved. Peenemunde was in the East.
English guns made the difference in 1612.
And yes, consumer goods are more important. What else is technology for but to improve people’s lives. Military power is fascist.
So why was Sweden known as hungry Sweden and why weren’t the common people of both countries known for their wealth. The Russian serfs were known for famine. They were not known for iron cooking pots, plows or even hand pumps for their wells.
You are displaying the Russian inferiority complex rather well. Focus on what was done well by Russia not denying others achievements.
And yet Russia lagged economically, technically and socially since at least the time of Ivan III. So what happened? A conspiracy by all other countries just against Russia?
Sweden is Anglo? Lay off the cheap drugs, mate.
Also, there is no such thing as a “Hajnal region”. The Hajnal line doesn’t apply to Eastern Europe.
Finally, you missed my point. Industrial advances were made by slow and gradual steps over many countries and cultures and many centuries. By definition, not a “revolution”.
The “industrial revolution” meme comes from the fact that Britain used to be an industrial backwater and then suddenly exploded to become the world leader of industry during a very short time. Props to the British for this, but please don’t use the phrase “industrial revolution” in any context except the very narrow one of specifically British history.
And yet Russian territory, population and cultural influence exploded during that time. If “lagging economically, technically and socially” is what it takes to become one of the dominant world powers, then I support more lagging and backwardness.
P.S. Trying to progress-shame Russians doesn’t work. We don’t give a flying fig about being “progressive” or “civilized”, we only care about results.
It’s called an industrial revolution owing to a large number of revolutionary advances made in one country in a relatively short period of time. Perhaps it helps to visualize it:
https://www.mrbevan.com/uploads/7/2/5/8/7258558/5396183_orig.gif
This had dramatic consequences as well–British industrial production skyrocketed, and by the middle of the 19th century Britain was supplying half the manufactures in Europe.
It’s perhaps “unfair” to neglect the fact that dramatic advances were being made on the Continent at the same time in other industries such as silk and glass, but those turned out to be less consequential.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/Murano_Glass_Chandelier.jpg
Obviously industry has existed since at least the Bronze Age (or even before civilization if one considers stone tools), and indeed the nature of progress is largely as you describe.
Can you think of comparable periods of technological efflorescence in other time periods?
Perhaps Classical and Hellenistic Greek civilization, where a startling number of advances were made in a two century period (and in nearly every field, not just technology and industry). The Song Dynasty also comes to mind.
Then there’s the “Second Industrial Revolution” (steel, electricity, chemicals, oil, automobiles, aircraft, computers, plastics, aluminum, etc.), but it’s so closely linked to the first (though by now a pan-Western affair) that we don’t think of it as distinct.
Swell, an edgedyke academic gets to speak for women now.
Men have superior visuospatial skills, but I vehemently disagree with you that women are second-rate writers. I don’t know if I’ll ever get around to writing my magnum opus or not, given that I don’t really give a shit about fame and fortune, but sometimes I feel like women ought to be more proprietary about our intellectual work-product. Our share-and-share-alike attitude just enables this sort of obnoxious male triumphalism.
Lord in heaven that chandelier is exquisite. I see it in a large room with a tete-a-tete chair, a piano and nothing else but a mirror on the wall to reflect it.
http://www.ciscobrothers.com/images/_Products/Tete-a-Tete_Chair_JD.jpg
the thing about the hajnal line idea is it doesn’t require any special cleverness on the part of the people inside it – just somehow or other the marriage pattern effected something that either acted as a trigger or removed a brake.
for example maybe reducing familial clannishness led people to try and regain the advantages by creating artificial clans in religious sects, voluntary guild associations etc
technical progress != social progress for sure
Russia also had to keep fighting steppe barbarians, conveniently insulating the West from it.
So basically you’re saying one cannot say meaningful and interesting things about, say, “the West” without pointing out there are significant differences between western countries.
This is basically a variant of “they’re not all like that” 🙂
Is it really true that in Europe they have lost the intellectual chops needed to make large scale analysis? Sad, if true.
I remember the days of the great European historians who reveled in sweeping generalizations and managed to say fascinating things – maybe this is why history writing is so often boring these days.
Well, what you are saying is obviously untrue.
Ancient cultures differed in the importance they ascribed to the body and the interest displayed in it.
When one culture builds elaborate religious temples and another builds statues of naked athletes, when one culture glorifies athletic pursuits and another disdains them, the difference in attitude is clear.
I wonder if I am detecting the same kind of values-insecurity that makes the IQ crowd unquestioningly assert that all groups have the exact same goals and thus differences in outcomes can only be caused by differences in ability 🙂
In other words, according to you everyone had the exact same interest in the body, but only the Greeks had the ability to express it.
If it makes you happy to believe that 🙂
Yes, Nietzsche attributed the vitality of Greek culture to the Agon in an early essay, and I believe he saw Socrates as establishing one final Agon with his dialogues.
I tend to agree with N that Greek culture died of excessive rationality – as ours is, following the same line of development.
But others may disagree.
I believe N pointed out Euripides as the beginning of the decline along with Socrates and as exemplifying a more comedic and rationalistic and less tragic attitude – I interestingly, Euripides plays were considered by the ancient Greeks as the most tragic.
Women write well about relationships. Jane Austen is the classic example. This is generally boring to men (though I find it interesting).
Likewise most women aren’t interested in adventure novels, science fiction, historical fiction, etc.
There are some female novelists who have succeeded with both sexes. Shelley, Christie, and J.K. Rowling (not a fan of her ofc).
I like cooking and thus come across a lot of female food bloggers (mostly SAHMs). It’s generally a real chore reading them, because every recipe starts out with an extremely boring story about the writer or her family.
Out of curiosity, I tried to read exactly one Jane Austin book and was amazed by how horrible it seemed. I really don’t get it – the plot and characters seemed really superficial, and the writing itself was not that great compared to other authors.
I actually wrote it off, as being written in an era that was more like Roman times than our own, but then that doesn’t explain why the Aeneid is so good and Austin is so bad.
Let me say that I’ve enjoyed several different female writers, at least on some levels. George Elliot and Emily Bronte were very good at putting words to together, though I do not like other aspects of their writing.
In Ancient Greece, they build “elaborate religious temples”, etc – these claims are inaccurate for what Ancient Greece was actually like.
Not really.
And especially comparing to modern world. Today the modern religious institution we can visit today and which are still active, most similar in atmosphere to how were Ancient Greek Temples – are likely active Hindu temples of today in India, and the reason is their antiquity and continuity of practice means they will have some atmosphere of the ancient world.
My experience is that reduced skill is just a result of women not appreciating criticism and using it constructively. Mind you, most men also don’t react well to criticism to their work, and art is a particularly personal form of expression; but men are slightly better at it.
In my old collective, which is overall very successful, there are more successful “women”(trans) than there are actual women :/
But overall, it is a kind of fringe thing overall. Its not a “normal” thing to get obsessed with writing, neglect job opportunities, ignore family and partly drop out of society so you can obsess over minutiae of fiction, and often indulge in some form of an alcohol or caffiene habit(sometimes more). I don’t think its surprising that there are more freaks overall in such an atmosphere, and women tend to be a bit less freakish. Even their freakism is more conformist, really.
I have not read Jane Austen.
But notice Jane Austen was writing before the novel reached its mature technological phase.
You have to compare her writing to her contemporaries, born in her generation.
Novel does not reach mature phase – containing all types of writing we expect when we buy in the bookshop, a typical novel – until around the mid-point of the 19th century.
George Elliot and Emily Bronte (I have not read any of these) – but we can see their works are all written from the mid-point of the 19th century and onwards (for Eiliot), where internationally the novel is entering mature phase.
But novel in 19th century, was like cinema in 20th century – an extremely internationally internationally, and generationally shaped art-form, which absorbed innovations and fashions with each decade of the century.
Gender and even nationality of novelist, can often have less influence in their work, than the generation they are born in.
Therefore, novels of 1880s can seem extremely similar across different countries, from Russia, to France, to England – but all of those very different to novels of 1810s, in the same countries.
As films in the 1990s somehow seem more similar to each other, even in different countries, than to films of 1950s.
Anglophones’, and also other peoples (but especially Anglophones), conception of ‘the West’ is often very narrative-based and the stories they tell about it reveals more about themselves than what actually happened.
Considering how you are, I am inclined to believe that what you consider ‘fascinating’ has an inverse relationship to truth. Many storytellers have been able to enrapture their audiences, yet they have also been known for creating elaborate fairytales which do not exist in reality.
All of us have an eternal debt which can never be repaid to our superiors, including our ancestors. The aim is record all of humanity and to preserve their memory so that they will live for all eternity. In contrast to this creating fanciful tales of their lives merely because you found it too ‘boring’ would be a grave dishonour.
At first I felt angry and confused when I heard about all these things you were saying.
But then I realised that it is meaningless to feel anything towards you other than a sense of distantness along with perhaps caution or disdain, because your ‘spirituality’ is merely a façade to cover up the fact that you have failed to find a genuine replacement of beliefs after your rejection of American materialism and this has left you an empty being.
Hence, you have developed all these contrived theories to suit your not-beliefs, even though in the end they are ultimately rooted in a very American mindset.
Arguing with you is like arguing with an omni-directional circle, and that is the whole point for you.
And while replying to you may be meaningless, it would be saddening if an otherwise productive person became convinced by your surface-level ideas and sunk so deep that they became an empty being as well.
We love them, so long as the human element is not neglected.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZY-suI8AbpY
The quality of prose has been decreasing since the mid-1900s. Compare any modern short story to, for example, R.E. Howard’s stories in terms of verbiage and feel. There are some things which are less possible these days, of course, like “writing” the same story three times and selling it with slight variations(unless you work for Harlequin, heh). But a lot of polish has gone away with the rush for publication.
Incidentally on that front: Mr. Karlin! I hear a new Eisenhorn story has been released. I shall read it and let you know.
Who, that was a pretty intense response to a fairly innocuous comment of mine 🙂
Not everything has to be a fight.
Look, I appreciate your point that details are important and can get lost or papered over when we make generalizations. It’s a fair point.
But at the same time, I think its pretty standard practice to make generalizations about large units, and that when you analyze something you can approach it from different levels of detail.
Sometimes it’s interesting to analyze “the Jews” and say interesting things about that people at that level of generality. Other times it may make sense to break it down further into Jewish sub-groups.
So it really depends on what you’re trying to do.
But, is it your claim that ancient Greece had the same interest in the body as say ancient India or ancient Israel?
And the corollary of this being that ancient civilizations did not differ in goals, preferences, or values but only in mastery of technique?
I wouldn’t really argue with you if this is what you thought, I am just curious.
If this is your position, its strikingly similar to the beliefs of the IQ crowd, and I find that significant because I’m doing a sort of informal psychological profile or psychohistory of the materialist mind.
I rest my case.
Vox Day has written extensively about this phenomenon.
A soap opera in space isn’t science fiction.
Sure it is. If Doc EE Smith wasn’t SF, you might as well throw over the whole genre, because you’re just picking categories to suit yourself at that point.
I think this is especially true of sci-fi which used to be taut, possibly from their being more of a space constraint from it be printed in magazines. Heinlein himself shows an obvious decline starting in the late ’50s or so, IMO.
I’ve also wondered if it was drugs or the aging of old writers, or success. For example, Heinlein used to write under a lot of editorial constraints and he probably needed them to be an effective writer.
Languages, like civilizations, have their apex periods and decline.
Peace.
No – I thought comment just shows a bit of a lack of knowledge of Ancient Greece.
These claims about Ancient Greeks, are falsified by actual reading of texts of the Ancient Grecce, as well as any intelligent studies of them.
It seems more like you are describing a 19th century Anglosaxon, American, image of Ancient Greece (which derived itself from much later Christian and Jewish misunderstanding of Ancient Greece, after the latter culture had become just a status symbol and prestige image).
It’s the view Americans have in high school, and expressed in cinema, rather than actual Ancient Greece of fishermen, plagues and superstitious cults.
Compared to modern world, – all ancient people would be forced to view physical health and body of young men who fight, as a precondition for their society’s survival. This is not unique.
But if anything 5th century Athens, is most divergent, in terms the amount of expenditure in spirituality, high culture, literature, relation of gods and man, and religious festivals.
It’s far less practical, and merely “physical” or “materialist” society, than almost any until this point in history (perhaps only with exception in Ancient India). Of course, in cities like Sparta, there is less divergence in this area, although Spartans are known for their stronger and more simple religious piety.
The decrease in spirituality may have something to do with part of it as well: consider the awkward, confused spirituality of Stephen King’s Salem’s Lot to the comfortable, playful depths of anything from Tolkien.
What’s that apex period for English? It seems to me that English prose can be called by and large “pretty good” from the 14th century right through to the age of television, with somewhat varying style. Incidentally if you haven’t read it Ronald Knox’s Let Dons Delight gives, in the service of a fictional history of Oxford, excellent samples in pastiche of most of these stages in English prose style, starting in the 1580s and ending in the 1930s.
I’ve read Art of War many, many times, but I don’t recall a single verse focused on physical health of the soldiers, except in the sense that logistics is important. For a society that was pretty constantly at war, Sun Tzu was mostly focused on the OODA cycle.
Why do you think that 19th century “Anglo-Saxons” were, by and large, less or worse acquainted with the classics than you are? Why do you think a Christian, Jewish, or Nietzschean misunderstanding of the classics is more distorted (and in what ways) than a dialectical materialist understanding?
These are not questions I can answer, or to which I am even particularly interested in the answers. I am just providing them for critical reflection.
That just demonstrates the superiority of Greek culture – the Greeks were able to express what Sun Tzu wanted to, but couldn’t.
What does OODA cycle have to do with rippling pectoral muscles? Pang Juan was a much greater warrior than Sun Bin(who he had mutilated), but it didn’t stop him from getting killed in a trap.
Additionally, by tradition, Sun Bin had sworn to their mutual teacher not to kill Pang, so he fulfilled his obligations to their mentor.
In most ancient world, taken as too obvious to write that you need fit men in the army. Neither in Greek texts, do they need to write this.
They don’t give instructions on how to eat, how to drink water, how to have sex, how to pick apples from a tree, how to start a fire, either (although at least the latter features in mythology) – but all human history people have been able to do this.
What they write about, are things not immediately clear to them.
Well, I am not claiming Greek culture was one-dimensional. I have said it was complex. I am merely saying that it had an unusual focus on the body and the physical.
This is quite compatible with saying there was also superstitious, religious, spiritual elements.
Sure, as living beings we can’t ignore the body, so every culture focuses on the body to some extent. I would have thought it obvious that today we focus far more on the body than the ancient world, but you say no. That’s fine.
Now, it remains a striking fact that Greek cultural expression focused on celebrating the body more than these other ancient cultures – you can speculate all you want about how everyone must have been focused on the body, but it is a fact that compared to Jews, Indians, Egyptians, the Greeks had nude statues of athletes, gymnasium, Olympic games, etc.
So that’s simply a fact – Greek cultural output focused on the physical far more than say Jews or Indians. Now that doesn’t mean Greek culture didn’t also have spiritual and intellectual elements. I have already said they did.
It is a question of where the focus is and what is distinctive – while Thucydides was pioneering “realist” history, Jews were solely interested in religious history, and Indians cared so little about the physical world that they didn’t write history at all.
Of course, the Greeks had their myths as well. I know that. It does not change what I am saying.
Now, if you are denying that the Greeks had any unusual focus on the physical than one must explain why in every field Greek cultural output focused more on the physical, from the realism instead of religious idealism of a Thucydides to the nude statues of muscled athletes and gymnasium, than did Indian, Jewish, etc culture.
Unless, of course, you want to suggest that Indian and Jewish religious writing and sculpture also glorifies the physical body for its own sake and is also realistic rather than idealistic.
But I am pretty sure even you would not suggest that 🙂
Spider-Man without Mary Jane? That doesn’t even make any sense.
There are many writers in 19th century who have better knowledge of Ancient Greek writings, than almost any people today.
But I’m talking about dominant view that enters the mainstream culture (and is acceptable within their religiously restrictive viewpoint – which went all the way to Victorian archaeologists who vandalized murals they believed were sexually pornographic) , rather than individual knowledge which was open to anyone who read the texts, and which was more common in 19th century than today.
What we have more now is much more archaeological knowledge, and systematic knowledge. And is also much more knowledge, from very difficult studies, now about less written things like their mystery cults.
We can also travel around so easily now and visit the Ancient sites ourselves in a few hours – which can be enlightening for readers from Northern cultures like us, who don’t grow up in Greece, Italy, Israel, Turkey, etc, and (in 19th century) could often only use their imagination of these lands, which was mediated by depictions from paintings and the imagination of artists working thousands of years later.
But the Greeks have similar stories of clever stratagems and ruses. What the Greeks have and the Chinese don’t, is statues of nude athletes with rippling muscles in large numbers.
Since we can take it for granted that all ancient cultures were equally preoccupied with the physical body as a matter of survival in harsh conditions, then clearly the Greeks alone were able to give expression to what was on the mind of everyone back then.
Therefore, this makes them superior.
The Chinese and the Jews would have liked to produce statues of nude athletes with rippling muscles, but only the Greeks were able to do so.
Not sure, I’m not an expert on English – my opinion isn’t as relevant as others. However, I remember listening to a lecture mentioning that the true high point of English was reached during the 16th-17th centuries. Shakespeare, King Jame’s Bible and other works being the notable defining moments.
Farsi had its high point with certain poets as did Arabic, etc.
Peace.
Chinese can stuff their Terra Cota army since they weren’t nude – take that Chinese – up yours!
Peace.
Ancient Egyptians and Indians have huge amounts of mostly nude sculpture.
The early Kouros in Ancient Greece, is hardly distinguishable from Ancient Egyptian, until 5th century Athens when there is an amazing artistic breakthrough.
But most works from Sparta, for example, are clothed and primitive figures – with a few exceptions after the breakthroughs in Athens.
As for India.
Ancient India religions pioneered works like Kama Sutra, and religious practice (even in caste society) of non-fighting Brahmins is mainly physical exercise, in form of yoga – which is now used in the modern gym.
As for the Ancient Israel – all we have is religious mythology. The intellectual level of the society did not reach to a higher level than these mythological texts (themselves actually very warlike and military based in the early periods).
From the 4th century, Israel becomes heavily Hellenized, and ruins are not distinguishable from the culture they are importing.
Thucydides is representing a much higher level of intellectual development, leaving behind the mythological era – but he is not representative of an average person of the era.
There is also something universal to the step he takes – as all cultures eventually develop the concept of accurate history, and historians from Thailand, to Japan, to Sweden, now try to write history, instead of mythology.
I also want to make clear Dmitry that I don’t discount the Greek spiritual tradition – I am very appreciative of it and have engaged with it. And Greek temples are lovely. And I don’t think Greek culture was one-dimensionally about the body. It was a complex culture with many fine spiritual and intellectual elements.
I am pointing to one rather distinctive element of Greek culture that is arguably its unique contribution to world culture – physicality, or “realism” in history, or rationalism in intellectual things, or nude athletes in sculpture, all of this is merely the development of a preoccupation with physicality – that was seized upon by northern Europeans to become the basis for the modern world.
It is s nuanced position, Dmitry.
I think its more than they assumed that fitness was something that was largely out of their control beyond the obvious.
The Romans actually went a bit into detail on everything, hilariously, including who was supposed to pick apples from trees, who to buy food from as a marching army and how to cook. I assume its more generalized – your better soldiers in such manuals were just listed as “elite” or “professional”(and such could be measured to have minimum expected levels of load-bearing) and more would be expected from them. Others such as levies or the like would be less relied on, and couldn’t be expected to meet minimum standards anyway.
Indian erotic sculpture was religious, and it is not widespread. There is no celebration of the athletes body for its own sake. Egyptian, Jewish, and Indian culture was overwhelmingly religious.
Greek culture, while also highly religious, pioneered the secular preoccupation with the body, and the physical world in general as opposed to the spiritual realm.
As for Thucydides, the value of realistic history really depends on ones value system. There have been cultures that thought it largely not worth writing, because mans proper focus should be the spiritual realm, and not the repetitive and futile battles that characterize life in the temporal realm.
That today everyone tries to write realistic history merely means western values have to some extent penetrates everywhere – whether that is a good thing, depends on ones value system. Nor is there any reason to believe this will be anything more than a short lived episode in the vast sweep of history.
Personally, I see value in realistic history but I also see tremendous value in mythological history – and the complete displacement of mythology by realistic history strikes me as a tragedy of incalculable proportions.
So for me, Thucydides accomplishment is a double edged sword – it would have been much better had it taken a position alongside mythology as just another element in mans intellectual toolkit.
Which ties in to my earlier point that Greek physicality needs the corrective balance of Eastern spirituality or it descends into mete barbarism, and perhaps that is the next stage in the evolution of world culture.
Indeed, Greek culture at its height was a balancing act between its indigenous physicality and foreign spiritual elements, which is what gave it such incredible vitality – northern Europeans plucked out the physical element from this rich cultural brew, but this element alone cannot serve as the basis for a high culture.
(Btw, I include rationalism as well as realism under physicality)
This is not secular – it is not even existing in this era – a division into two separating categories. This is a categorization only introduced later by history.
Why? It’s inevitable that people will – regardless if Japanese or Thai – at one point, want to know accurately what happened. It’s something you can even remember as a child – when your friend is telling entertaining stories, but at some point you need to know what actually happened (if there is a dispute, or argument between two people), or your parents want to know why the chocolate cake was eaten.
Why do you get the division from indigenous physical and foreign spiritual?
The religion was indigenous, and derived from older Mycenaean and even some Minoan mythology (although elements like human sacrifice long surpassed, but animal sacrifice continuing even in classical Athens).
The intellectual development occurred also indigenously, but only among small segments of urbanized elite – not peasants in the fields, slaves or fishermen.
In terms of religious sophistication, Ancient Greece is kind of primitive compared to India of even the same era, probably partly because they had inherited such old religion (most of their gods already created by Mycenaeans, during Bronze Age).
True, the concept of the secular may be a classification that developed later, but the classification system does not create the phenomena it describes – it merely describes it. So the facts are the same.
As for realistic history, we see that it is not inevitable. Jews, for instance, never developed a cultural tradition of realistic history despite being exposed to Greeks and Romans. Indians wrote even less history than Jews. They just didn’t think it was that important. Sure, a child may at some point want to know what really happened, but realistic history is a rigorous discipline that requires enormous effort, time, and mental discipline of a kind that may interfere with one’s spiritual pursuits, like training oneself to not think in terms of religious or mythological significance – for a culture that is primarily focused on the spiritual realm, this enormous investment of time, energy, and mental re-training can only detract from the main purpose of human life.
Furthermore, to the religious mind mythology is in some sense true -“what really happened” – and idealism is not clearly separated from realism. That distinction requires a special purpose – domination of the physical world by subtracting spiritual factors from consideration. To a culture whose main purpose is spiritual, such a distinction would never arise.
You are doing what the IQ people do – projecting your values onto everyone. My emerging portrait of the materialist mind tells me that materialists are disturbed that others may not share their values, and feel it necessary to assume everyone must, and snuggle in this assumption as if it were proven fact.
Why do I say physicality was indigenous but spirituality foreign? Well, the physicality is what appears nowhere else, so it must be the indigenous Greek genius. And we have records of foreign spiritual elements having huge impact on Greece, from the Egyptians to the God Pan, who was considered a wild, Asiatic, foreign God that menaced Greek rationalism. Pythagoreanism displays many Indian elements, and Plato and his successors describe a spirituality that is remarkably Indian in its main elements. Greece was perched on the edge of a vast Oriental world with which it was constantly trading and undoubtedly received influences from. Greeks would go to Egypt to acquire wisdom. Of cohrse, in this rich brew there were undoubtedly indigenous Greek religious elements as well, as we see with their mythology.It was a thick melange.
Yes, the Greek intellectual tradition was an elite production, but that is always the case, today as well.
That’s very true – there was an evolution. Part of my thoughts were about how technology itself may have influenced the technical level of novels. Jane Austen hadn’t rode a train or been on a steamship or received a telegram. I imagine that later decades helped make some innovations possible. Increasing literacy and cheap transportation (to distribute magazines) perhaps helped short stories gain traction.
It’s an effect that is easy to perceive in some ways. Moving towards 1900, you start seeing a lot of multiple perspective novels like Treasure Island and Dracula. In the latter, if I recall correctly, there was one chapter that was said to be a phonograph recording. Settings were probably influenced in some way by travel.
Dmitri: Aristotle’s system did not even include basic properties of disjunctions
utu: What is there to disjunction that Aristotle would not know? Would he think F v F might be T? Or that F v T might not be T? Or that T v T might be F? Get real. The law of excluded middle is central to Aristotle.
Dmitri: Disjunctions themselves are understood by most three year olds, and everyone who understands the meaning of the word “or”. And logical processes according to disjunctions itself, may possibly even exist in corvids, octopuses, and cleverer dogs.
I had to ignore the rest of your comment.
In the absence of Mongols, the English and the French found each other suitable military targets!
While you are able to make more nuanced and developed statements at times, at the end of the day you always return to this facile trope of Western Materialism Eastern Spirituality.
Everything you say is merely meant to reinforce this idea, regardless of whether what you are saying is true or not. Your statements have no independent value.
I am sure the Tangut would have preferred that the Mongols had behaved more like the English or French.
Good diagnosis. Good job! It is possible that there is also a bad faith or intentionally destructive streak.
When women attempt those genres they invariably fail. Female science fiction is particularly dire. There’s a lot of nonsense written about how women dominated the crime genre (the so-called Crime Queens) but it’s merely feminist propaganda. Apart from Christie the women writers of detective fiction of the golden age were third-rate (Dorothy L.Sayers, Ngaio Marsh, etc).
There’s been a handful of first-rate women novelists – Austen, Emily Brontë, Charlotte Brontë. No worthwhile women poets since Sappho. No worthwhile women dramatists at all.
In the arts generally the contribution of women has been minuscule. Women are amazingly good at dissecting relationships which is handy if you want to be a novelist but no help if you want to be a painter, architect, composer, poet, etc.
Camille Paglia on the other hand most certainly does have a first-rate mind.
Which neatly demonstrates that women don’t understand those genres at all.
The quality of art and literature in general has been declining for a century. It’s one of the signs that our civilisation has entered the phase of terminal decadence.
Smith did not write soap operas in space. That’s not the stuff Smith wrote. His work and that of his contemporaries was labelled space opera simply because it was a convenient term of abuse, just as westerns were labeled as horse operas.
What Thorfinnson and Vox Day are talking about is the science fiction written by women that is all about relationships.
The decline started with sci-fi writers started taking themselves seriously. And, even worse, when the genre started to attract attention from academics. That’s always the kiss of death.
I don’t think that’s true. Measures of quality stay constant throughout time, ie a bad or good film or book today will have had the same intrinsic worth as when it was created.
On Austen, I have only read Emma, which I recall enjoying, which I must have as I read it in 2 consecutive days. Obviously if one reads novels for ‘social criticism’, big ideas, political analogies or other such anti-artistic BS they won’t find much in Austen, but she’s a pleasant writer.
I remember having the impression that her writing style would translate very badly from English to any other language.
Female sci-fi? I liked K.A. Applegate’s books when I was very young, particularly the Remnants series, though admittedly ‘science’ component was very low. Perhaps irrelevant, since I find ‘hard’ sci-fi a tremendous bore anyway (Asimov, 40K or the Strugatsky’s are hardly ‘hard’ scifi). In a very real sense its unfair to expect any woman to write anything on the level of Lermontov or Goethe anyway.
A lot of this decline is simply attributable to the fact that real writing talents have been drawn to the far more lucrative fields of film and television for a long time now.
‘Big fiction’ in the modern era tends to attract pretentious mediocrities like Thomas Pynchon, rather than figures like Ingmar Bergman or David Chase.
It is enough to say that Greeks “invented” man as a social individual & that no other high civilization came with this truly revolutionary ideal. Man is individual, both rational & irrational. Individualism, freedom, democracy…. this is what truly modern world is about.
And it hadn’t come (nor could have come) from any other high civilization, let alone anything else…
No she doesn’t. You mistake taboo-breaking for brilliance. This is a common error, and one this arguably at the root of our troubles.
Sure it is.
BTW Mr. Doom, I see you are a proponent of forced prostitution (arranged marriage). Hence your need to establish that women are only good for sex, and can’t do anything else. It’s prostitute or parasite, as far as you’re concerned. I’m surprised Unz Dads haven’t run you off by now for suggesting they pimp out their daughters.
Hyperbole does not help in these situations and likely hurts one’s credibility.
How exactly is an arranged marriage like prostitution?
My parents’ generation were actually in arranged marriages; families knew each other (sometimes they were family friends) and did the task of suggesting the husband/wife to their daughter/son.
Thankfully, I know of none in the previous generation (among the people I know) that were forced – all of them were simply the families doing matchmaking and the prospective bride and groom agreeing to it. And sometimes some auntie (or group of aunties) was involved that were known in the community to be successful matchmakers.
It’s not as dramatic as people think.
Peace.
You are right. What I need to do is recall the West to the spiritual traditions within its own past.
I forgot that I had resolved to do just that, and reverted to my old patterns.
Agreed.
And whether one thinks this is a good thing depends on ones assessment of individualism and the modern world.
Talha, my good man, you underestimate the darkness of this man’s heart. If you disagree with my assessment of Dr. Doom, why do you think he feels the need to constantly insult and belittle women?
When you agree to exchange sexual services for material support, you’re a prostitute. When you are forced into this arrangement, you have been forced into prostitution.
That’s not really arranged marriage. It’s more like proactive matchmaking, and totally unobjectionable.
Talha, I would also ask you to consider the sneering contempt and hostility of his approach to women. He calls for subterfuge and manipulation (make them think it’s their idea), rather than reasoning and negotiation. I utterly reject this.
Men and women need to be forthright about our wants and needs, not play games like children. That is the only way to have healthy relationships, whether in the home or in society at large.
It’s sort of strange to consider, but I think arranged marriages were pretty common in the West, not that long ago. You can kind of see in genealogy, even if you don’t know the direct story. Sometimes you will see two marriages 15 years or more apart that seem to connect two places and two surnames in a nonrandom way. Sometimes an uncle marries a women with a certain name and then his niece marries a groom with that name – not directly the same family, but obviously related in some way.
It can be a bit frustrating not to know more about it, when your dealing with records that don’t go back very far, but I’d guess at least 4 of my G grandparents had arranged marriages, possibly more.
In the context of the time, I think it was sensible. People had a greater mortality back then and having kin networks was pretty important. To give one example, two sisters marry two brothers, and you know what? If one couple dies, their children still have a home, where they share blood with both their uncle and aunt – that’s pretty neat.
Hi Rosie, I actually wasn’t defending dfordoom. He’s a big boy, he can defend himself. I was merely making a case about “arranged marriage”, which it seems, the term itself is seen differently by people. The matchmaking I described has always been referred to as an arranged marriage. So maybe dfordoom was referring to this matchmaking model. He can elaborate.
As far as marriage is concerned; from a strictly legal perspective, it really has been a woman’s exchange of sexual services for a man providing room and board.
This legal arrangement forms the skeleton of the institution, and it can last purely on this basis as a kind of business transaction; what’s love got to do with it?
Kidding aside though, thankfully, the vast majority of marriages around the world are built on love, respect and mutual goals on top of that legal foundation.
Peace.
Note: Interesting read on this subject:
“A woman who wants to divorce her husband on the grounds she is unhappy has lost her Supreme Court appeal.
Tini Owens, 68, from Worcestershire, wanted the court to grant her a divorce from her husband of 40 years Hugh, who is refusing the split.”
https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-england-hereford-worcester-44949856
This is key – if you want to revive certain aspects of society, then you may have to also consider reviving certain institutions.
In my own history, my parents (via aunts and uncles) tried to arrange a partner for me, but it didn’t work out since, though the girl was attractive, she was not what I was looking for as far as religious commitment. A friend of mine tried to arrange a match for me, his family hosting both me and the girl for meeting in their living room and discussing getting married. She was very attractive and religiously practicing, but she wasn’t very interested in spirituality too much, she was more into legalities and politics, so that didn’t work out. In another prospect, I approached a friend about his sister. Though he was very happy about the prospect, she wasn’t – so that went nowhere fairly quickly.
In all the above case, the key was everything was about marriage at the outset, there was no messing around and no other expectation, so everyone involved was dead serious about the situation. It helped, because emotions didn’t get involved too early and people tried not to waste everyone’s time.
I think I mentioned before that I have a couple of girls in mind (daughters of a brother I knew at UCLA) for my two boys (basically the arrangement you mentioned) and keep my eyes open for good families that are raising good daughters. It’s really weird, but I had not thought much about it before, but this concern subconsciously surfaced just recently as I’m growing older.
Peace.
It’s pretty much the opposite, I would have thought.
The modern western approach, the meat market approach, the approach that half a century of feminism has led us to, encourages young women to behave like sluts and whores. I think that’s rather tragic.
The idea of arranged marriages is to find suitable spouses and to maximise the chances of happy successful marriages. The idea is to avoid having women effectively selling themselves.
You’re making the mistake of assuming that anyone who disagrees with feminism must be motivated by misogyny. In actual fact most people who disagree with feminism do so because feminism is misogynistic. Anyone who actually likes and respects women can only be appalled at what the woman-hating feminists have done to women.
Now I have no idea what you’re trying to argue. Are you saying that marriage is the same as prostitution? So how would an arranged marriage be any different in that respect from any other marriage?
In most sane societies it has been recognised that young people (both male and female) are unbelievably stupid and impulsive and irresponsible. If left entirely to their own devices to make their own decisions they will almost invariably manage to make the wrong decisions. In the case of marriage they will tend to make decisions based on emotion and/or lust.
Parents are assumed to have more sense, being old enough to have learnt to exercise judgment, so it’s logical that parents should have the right, and the responsibility, to push their children into making more sensible decisions that they would otherwise make. This seems to be understood in Islamic societies. Because the West has gone collectively insane it is no longer understood in western society.
Compared to western society Islam is simply a bit more realistic about human nature.
Being forthright is antithetical to a woman’s strategies in the sexual marketplace and will never be practiced on a large scale.
I agree.
The WEIRDOs are forming their own worldwide tribe, while dislocating their shoulders patting themselves on the back for their rejection of tribalism.
The only freedom worth experiencing is the freedom of submitting to a higher purpose and transcending one’s base form.
Otherwise, like animals, humans’ freedom will merely be their chains.
Friedan-era feminism classically equates marriage with prostitution(or worse, sexual slavery and domestic labor). Its nothing new, and actually rather mild compared to some, who equated all genital male-to-female sex as rape.
Its pretty entertaining in its own way, but ultimately it is indeed a destructive cult.
You mean that obesity isn’t the highest goal in life?!!!
Agreed.
Agreed.
Agreed.
Peace.
Someone really should make an entirely sung science fiction piece, a proper space opera. Repo: Genetic Opera was hilarious and awesome, but more cyberpunk than sci-fi in its construction.
The point is, if you compare books of author Austen born in 1775, and published in 1810s – they will be far more similar to novels of authors book in 1770s, and published in 1810s, than to any other writers (especially later writers, as the novel developed very rapidly over the century).
Without understanding of history of the art form, people can be very confused. For example, of course she will not likely have “political analogues and social criticism” – as this was only feature of the novel in later decades in the century.
Also people who think art can be removed from its era and development history – it’s not true.
Unless you will ignore why Haydn and Mozart sound so similar, and both completely different to Palestrina.
Or why films of 1920s are so similar to each other, and so different to those of 1990s.
Why paintings of 1890s are far more similar to each other (across different artists), than to those of 1790s?
In some eras, development of the art form has greater difference, than individuality of the artist. But only across eras when an art form is developing rapidly. Bebop jazz of 1950s, is very different to swing jazz of 1930s. But is there a difference between jazz of 1990s and jazz 2000s? (no – as art form is not in process of rapid development anymore).
Question whether something good in 1810, is always good throughout history, is a different topic. Probably yes, but often what people without sense of context, perceive as good or bad in the work, might be more a product of its era, than something unusual in artist themselves.
Gulliver’s Travels was published in 1726.
I was looking at 1810s novels to compare with Austen – one is Frankenstein, which is creation of a woman author Mary Shelley. Although there is controversy in whether her husband (also a famous writer) has contributed to the work or not.
It’s not a novel though, but a satirical text.
If you go to book shop and buy this satire from 1726, and with expectations of losing yourself in a novel – expecting to be thrown in detailed descriptive world, with endless social commentary as in Tolstoy, mixed with cinematic scenes and pages of discussion of the emotional situation of different characters – you would be very disappointed.
It sounds kind of shocking for some people – but expectations of what kinds of things to find in a famous work of literature, will be most accurately managed by year of publication. Not much less than when you buy a DVD of an old film.
“Man is the measure of all things”
“Concerning the gods I cannot know either that they exist or that they do not exist, or what form they might have, for there is much to prevent one’s knowing: the obscurity of the subject and the shortness of man’s life.”
Protagoras (/proʊˈtæɡərəs/; Greek: Πρωταγόρας; c. 490 – c. 420 BC)
Marx and Engels were before Friedan. You can find marriage=prostitution in Communist Manifesto.
There are more females among great (or significant) writers, but they are not so well known or popular: Marie de France, Maria Edgeworth, Virginia Woolf, Marguerite Yourcenar, Anna Akhmatova, Emily Dickinson, Flannery O’Connor, Sigrid Undset, Marina Tsvetaeva, Elizabeth Bishop, Willa Cather, Simone de Beauvoir, Ursula Le Guin, …
Of course, and the incomparable George Eliot:
I remember how, at Cambridge, I walked with her once in the Fellows’ Garden of Trinity, on an evening of rainy May; and she, stirred somewhat beyond her wont, and taking as her text the three words which have been used so often as the inspiring trumpet-calls of men—the words God, Immortality, Duty—pronounced, with terrible earnestness, how inconceivable was the first, how unbelievable the second, and yet how peremptory and absolute the third. Never perhaps, have sterner accents affirmed the sovereignty of impersonal and unrecompensing Law. I listened, and night fell; her grave, majestic countenance turned toward me like a sibyl’s in the gloom; it was as though she withdrew from my grasp, one by one, the two scrolls of promise, and left me the third scroll only, awful with inevitable fates. And when we stood at length and parted amid that columnar circuit of the forest trees, beneath the last twilight of starless skies, I seemed to be gazing, like Titus at Jerusalem, on vacant seats and empty halls—on a sanctuary with no Presence to hallow it, and heaven left lonely of a God.
Frederic Myers 1881, on George Eliot’s visit to Cambridge 1873
I think that’s drawing too close of a definition on it; the classical Robinson Crusoe is a novel, but it is also is very moralizing in many parts. Without understanding any of the satire, the work can still be appreciated as a ‘stranger in a strange land” narrative – and some reviewers at the time treated it as such, with its entire faux autobiographical style.
Tolstoy and Dostoevsky is really rather uniquely Russian more than anything else; its pacing is very different from most English works. Relatively few events, for example, really happens in Crime and Punishment, but that’s not the important part; its the exploration of a soul tormented by guilt which matters.
Thank you for that passage.
That passage would have to figure prominently in any accounting of the gradual squeezing out of joy and vitality from the West.
No God, no immortality, just some vague, abstract, imprisoning Law.
That is where Europe had got by the end of the 19th century. The next 100 years of decadence and collapse is just commentary I guess.
Well, it is obviously private ownership of services unmanaged by the state; such domestic services are also unaccounted for and all potential tyranny that is not the state is of course more horrible than state tyranny. It would be ideal for the state to have all sex be billed, this could be regulated and taxed; this would also greatly increase the recorded GDP in the country.
Good.
So you say. Where is your evidence?
Thank you Dr. Doom of Arabia.
Amish parents take a near-totally hands-off approach, and the youth find partners and stay married for life. If there is a successful indigenous model of marriage based on free choice, why do you feel compelled to glorify alien traditions?
Marriage based on mutual affection is not prostitution. It is a partnership. It is the transactional (and non-companionate) nature of the arrangement that makes it prostitution. As I said, when you have sex with a man for consideration, in cash or in kind, the essence of the arrangement is transactional.
I find it interesting that men here are so dismissive of my view that marrying for financial support constitutes prostitution. I thought men hated gold-diggers, preferring instead to have a woman choose them for more companionship-related reasons.
Anyway, the point is this. If women are denied any independent means of support, they are in effect forced into an unwanted marriage (i.e. prostitution). This is the policy that Dr. Doom advocates if I’m not mistaken.
I would 100% support the rest of Western society adopting these kinds of traditions from within its own people – indigenous forms that work are best suited for people.
The Amish of course do not encourage fornication nor shacking up nor marriage outside their group.
.
There are two aspects to marriage just like any legally recognized partnership between two people (even a business partnership).
One is the idealized form – which you outlined and everyone should strive for.
The other is the barebones legal aspect which comes into play when things break down and the husband/wife go to court to demand legal enforcement of their rights; “Judge, my husband/wife does not provide me with X, I need my rights fulfilled.” What are those legal rights? You agreed that being kept “happy” is not a legal obligation in marriage.
Both are called a marriage, but obviously of different levels.
Peace.
For what it’s worth, I didn’t equate marriage with prostitution, only forced marriage. As another commenter pointed out, sexual and domestic slavery might actually be a better analogy, though it’s not clear that there is any meaningful difference between forced prostitution and domestic labor on the one hand and forced prostitution on the other.
My position is more like that of the Catholic Church:
1627 The consent consists in a “human act by which the partners mutually give themselves to each other”: “I take you to be my wife” – “I take you to be my husband.”[126] This consent that binds the spouses to each other finds its fulfillment in the two “becoming one flesh.”[127]
1628 The consent must be an act of the will of each of the contracting parties, free of coercion or grave external fear.[128] No human power can substitute for this consent.[129] If this freedom is lacking the marriage is invalid.
If I’m not mistaken, the Church considers any forced null and void, but potentially valid if genuine marital affection develops between the parties. Again, it is the companionate relationship that brings the relationship into conformity with God’s plan for marriage.
Also I think you might be making this too personal. That dfordoom said something positive about Islam does not mean he wants to adopt Arab culture. Europeans had their own ways of arranging marriages/matchmaking in the past. Songbird mentioned this was likely the scenario only two generations ago within one’s own family. One can simply return to a modified form of those arrangements.
I don’t think anyone here is advocating any form of forced marriage.
Peace.
Use of unusual pacing is not anything Russian (or in earlier novels), it is simply reflecting literary experiments of second half of 19th century onwards.
Dostoevsky – one of the first to experiment with slow pacing (first hundred pages of Idiot is one night only). But after a while, this is fashionable around the world, and there are many novels which are slowing down time. In the early 20th century, reaches its limit – with Mrs Dalloway and Ulysses both novels contained completely in one day. Ulysses – 730 page novel about a single day.
Dostoevsky, who originally was quite pioneering, then seems very normal and conservative by comparison to novels of 1920s like Ulysses.
First Protagoras quote is really a statement of relativism (not individualism) though, and very strongly rejected by Socrates in the Plato’s dialogue which is called his name.
The Catholic Church also indicated that procreation is the primary purpose of intercourse, and prohibited all almost all forms of contraception. Abortion was murder, and therefore an excommunicable offense.
(1 Corinthians 11:3 & 7-9)
When my ex-girlfriend worked for the UN in Georgia a few years ago, she still had to cover her head in church(to others, yes, yes, I’m pretty sure that she was yet another POZ-ling sent to undermine a traditional society, shush already, I wasn’t dating her at the time). As per Aquinas, women were so fundamentally defective that they were not considered as valid witnesses or, of course, own property and this was reflected in canon law. Women were protected, in the same way that their status was the rough equivalent to that of children(and children were protected).
I don’t really care to argue too much way or another – I’m very right-wing and I’ve grown up with extreme liberal groups, even technically been part of a outright “feminist” organization a few years ago, so I’ve heard it all before. I think its better to signal for deep anti-feminism because its always better to overshoot your case, and then hope to meet somewhere in the middle. Maybe women will be pleasant again.
But really I’m too misanthropic. Humanity exists to self-destruct. Civilization is the ultimately doom of civilization.
Problem of “feminism” is not whatever beliefs are there (not something even clear), but the idea that women as category is some particularly interesting subject, that will provide us anything insightful.
It’s problem of taking some uninteresting category (like gender), and then reifying into something mystical. It’s similar to Nazism and Marxism, which operate on race and class.
From this, the beliefs are often similar.
First you identify with the category.
Second, that there is a conspiracy theory, which has worked throughout history against the category (women), and is identifiable enemy (men). (As in Nazism – enemy are Jews, Slavs etc, and in Marxism – bourgeoisie)
Third – that is some special “sisterhood” which united all members of this category (women), and that only members of the category can understand each other. (This very powerful in political movements as it promises to end people’s loneliness – one of main operators in Nazism and Marxism).
Finally – that some mystical and meaning of life can be created from endless obsession category “women” (this is the same structure as Marxism and Nazism, focusing on obsession in class and race categories, and assignment of magical properties to proletariat, or to German race – respectively).
–
Reality about feminism is that women (as category) are not very interesting, and if you try to reduce history or literature to this topic, you will end up writing very boring works of history and literary criticism (as happens).
He wants, in his own words, “White Sharia.”
Now, I have repeatedly provided evidence to the contrary, but these manosphere guys who have unfortunately invaded our movement pay no mind to evidence. Like certain other people, they pretend not to remember the ten times you demolished them in a debate and just go on repeating the same lies over and over again.
Right, but that kind of refutes your point that novels of the same era all have great similarities. When Dostoevsky was writing Crime and Punishment, Hugo’s Les Misérables was just released and it has completely different pacing, storytelling structure, methods and attitude, even though in some ways it is vaguely similar(stories of miserably, poor people and interactions with criminality).
I do think that distance and language has something to do with it. You see the entire “news clip” style in both English and French stories of the time: Dracula had it, Phantom of the Opera, and so on. Off the top of my head, I can’t recall any Russian novel that did that(enlighten me?), and it was kinda tacky and no one does it anymore.
Almost any reductionist theory will ossify in this way. A case in point: the manosphere carrying on about how women destroy civilizations.
How nice. The trouble is, Daniel, our race is going extinct. How about you not make it a point to create more division among Whites by “overshooting the case.” The White man has enough enemies as it is. He doesn’t need to make an enemy of White women by fantasizing about White Sharia.
Yes, as I mentioned before, Sweden is truly the brightest future.
Good luck with your crusade. You’re making a lot of converts here, as we can all see.
Its kind of funny how it has been completely usurped by the lesbian faction, basically. I imagine it will have more silly mutations, maybe takeover by transsexuals, in its near-future. 18 years ago or so, there were “feminists” which actually defined it as “extreme feminity.” Its a nature of organizations that it eventually gets corrupted, I think.
The Joker would approve and all.
But yeah, I was part of an organization/company that was defined as “feminist” and technically all they wanted was to create safe online locations, do some sort of nature/goddess thing, and create what would be called “female spaces.” In a few years, it naturally got overtaken by the lesbians, being the most masculine of women, really. Seems to have happened on a macro level too. Pretty amusing.
These days, I wouldn’t care much for their original objectives anyway.
For what its worth Rosie, I tend to agree with you.
The negative attitude towards women in the manosphere and the alt-right is childish and counterproductive. It certainly does not reflect a mature and balanced perspective.
But I would also suggest not being too hard on them. Most people on this site and in the alt-right are not deep thinkers. They are relatively simple people who see the negative effects of feminism and lash out against it in an emotional fashion. Of course they go to the opposite extreme.
As a temporary reaction this is understandable and perhaps warrants a degree of sympathy. I am pretty sure that as the cultural reaction against the excesses of the Left reaches its mature phase this kind of childish nonsense will be replaced by a more mature and balanced appreciation of women.
Also, as the cultural revolution against the Left begins to attract more intelligent and emotionally mature men, this is bound to happen. At the moment the alt-right struggles with a human capital problem.
In traditional cultures women are limited in some ways but also empowered and appreciated in other ways. But this requires the sense of security provided by a stable culture firmly anchored by a religion. We are nowhere near that point yet.
There is a lot of confusion, blind lashing out, and groping in the dark at the moment, as people see the destructiveness of feminism – especially as very few people have the intellectual ability to take a step back and see the larger picture.
But this is a phase that will pass.
In the West, be hear a lot of horror stories that color our thoughts. Things often have a spectrum, but I don’t think that’s the way it worked most of the time. You can certainly hear a lot of horror stories about non-arranged marriages too.
I think of the old custom in a couple of ways: it was a way that families could do a bit of recon – find out the other people were not thieves or crazy. It often resulted in brides being located near their male kin – as a kind of insurance. It helped encourage people to be more responsible in their life goals. Women were encouraged to have children. Men to gain property so they could marry.
One can see some of the morality in it, simply by comparing the legacy. If you are alive today, you are probably the product of arranged marriages in the not too distant past. Compare that to all the lonely and childless people, with no legacy.
At the very least – I think society’s priorities are messed up now, and could use some retuning. Whether that is the old system, or match-making computer algorithms, I don’t know.
The nuclear family itself is technically a degeneration; even in EE not to long ago, the standard was for an extended family to have significant influence on your life. Part of the issue is that its fundamentally not very “Western” at all, there are a lot of stories of how it makes for rather immature men and women, who are never really separated from their parents until death and enormously influential mother-in-laws and father-in-laws.
Its essentially “clannishness” from literal family clans.
We are all just trying to find our bearings for sanity in the ocean of modernity without a compass. Fun times.
I’m not looking for converts. Who was it who said that courage is in shorter supply than brilliance? Most Right-wing men already agree with me, but the woman-haters have gained the upper-hand using sophistry and ridicule. I’m empowering good White men with the knowledge and understanding they need to take these woman-haters and shut their lying mouths once and for all.
I, for one, am glad that these good men have someone empowered and noble like yourself to stand up for them and protect them.
Sometimes it is and sometimes it is not. And in a long run certainly it is not because there is not much sex going on anyway. Usually there are children.
Nobody denies women independent means of support anymore. Whether all women like it that’s another question.
If you are a libertarian woman you may spiral down to where everything becomes a transaction that should be spelled out and should have a tangible exchange value. You would not say ‘hello’ or ‘thank you’ before calculated the value of the transaction and what you get in return. Then also your cunt is just a commodity. But do you want to live in the Libertarian Paradise?
Me too. The trouble with White men is that they are easily shamed into silence by words:
Racist
Sexist
Homophobe
Beta
Cuck
White Knight
Etc…..
I respect White men by rejecting name-calling and shaming and appealing to their sincere and reasonable nature. I will win by telling the truth.
But that is precisely what many men around these parts advocate. Are you not paying attention?
I understand. I’m a stay-at-home mom of a large family and wouldn’t change a thing. I feel fairly confident that the vast majority of women would choose my lifestyle if they could, but that is beside the point.
You can’t argue for extreme restrictions on women’s freedom and independence without justifying those policies by references to our supposed natural wickedness, and this is a fight you cannot now afford to pick, and do not need to pick.
P.S. I’m a rather typical ethnonational socialist with little sympathy for libertarianism.
This is not lost on me. Lashing out is perfectly understandable, but here again, that cuts both ways doesn’t it? Whence the sympathy for women who become man-hating feminists after being pumped and dumped for the umpteenth time, or not pumped but still dumped because you want to wait for a commitment? Feminism didn’t just materialize out of nothing.
More importantly, there is already a space for angry young men to sound off – the manosphere. I don’t want their misogyny to be conflated with pro-Whiteness. They have another agenda and are therefore a subversive presence in a movement that is supposed to be about White ethnic solidarity. I have heard them say numerous times that they would side with Muslim invaders over White men who don’t agree with them on the WQ.
Hugo was a main influence and favourite writer of Dostoevsky, and obviously Les Miserables was one of the main influence on Crime and Punishment
It can be useful also to look at the generation of writer – i.e. Victor Hugo is a generation older than Dostoevsky. Dostoevsky grew up reading Hugo’s earlier works and saw him as a hero.
Victor Hugo’s narrative voice, very similar to Dostoevsky, and Dostoevsky’s narrator is heavily influenced by Victor Hugo at the beginning of each chapter, often going into unrelated topics in almost the same way.
As for his pacing. Dostoevsky’s has very slow pacing in some works, and this was not common in his time, but became very fashionable in a later generation of novelists.
But pacing is one innovation. Most later novels using slow pacing, are nothing like Dostoevsky in other ways – as they use all kinds of different techniques in other ways. Dostoevsky’s novels are most similar to other novels of 1860s-1880s.
Well I for one do have sympathy for such women and agree that sympathy should cut both ways.
A hundred years ago I probably would have reserved the bulk of my sympathy for women suffering unjustly under the traditional system and would have supported some measured feminist reforms.
Today, however, feminism is the dominant mainstream form of injustice, so the bulk of my sympathy is naturally for the victims of today’s system. Which doesn’t mean even today I have no sympathy for women driven into the arms of radical feminism by a history of abusive men. I do sympathise with such women and would understand their position somewhat – I have a niece like that.
But a reasonable person should focus on the particular excesses of his time – which today is feminism – while retaining a balanced overall perspective and not falling into the trap of going to the opposite extreme.
I agree the manosphere is quite awful, but it unfortunately seems inextricably bound up with the alt-right, and to be part of the same impulse of opposition to modern Leftist culture. I don’t know how the two can be separated – the common theme is opposition to all groups that modern culture privileges.
I think the thing to hope for is a moderation of manosphere views on women, which are currently extreme and irrational – but their foundational stance of opposition to feminism does not seem seperable from the counter revolution against the Left.
First Protagoras’ quote was on anthropocentrism, which is, among other things, both individualism AND relativism. And Socrates, while trying to reject Protagoras, could not disprove him. You cannot prove nor disprove a world-view.
Some early feminist ideals are correct.
Still now – I think it would be good to encourage greater numbers of women to do practical subjects like engineering fields.
Aside from economic benefit, it creates a better balance in universities and work environment (the male to female ratio is too high in a lot of fields).
It’s currently too many men to women at university in things like computer science – when you have 3 men for every girl on your course (it’s too unbalanced at the university).
Other feminism which is good idea, is that women should work and support themselves financially.
Not working, and laziness, is degenerating to personality of anyone, even of women who want to be silly children who prefer to go shopping.
Just fact of having to set alarm, and wake up to go to work – is giving some discipline and self-respect to them.
People who say women should not work, and just look after children – it’s also quite retarded, even from a children’s perspective.
My mother was not working for years, and without ever full time jobs. Definitely the atmosphere became a lot better in our family (less hassle for children) when she got a part time job. Most children actually want their parents to be more independent from them.
Women being dependent on other people, or staying in the apartment and shopping – it’s not like can be accurately described as natural or historically eternal state either. In hunter-gatherer era, it’s pretty likely they would be outside helping to e.g. catch fish (which is hard work, unlike buying it in supermarket).
Also possible indication of laziness of women in societies with lowest workforce participation of women.
Currently, it’s partly possible to correlate on the map, most countries with highest female obesity rates (they are not America) inversely with lowest female workforce participation rates. The Middle Eastern, Arab and Islamic populations, which have many of the lowest female workforce participation rates in the world, have extremely high rates of female obesity.
In Russia, Japan, China and Western Europe (with exception of US), where female participation in workforce high, rates of female obesity are low.
Protagoras view (as presented Plato) is wrong though (at least in way Plato presented in the text), and people in Ancient World probably even more sceptical than us of this view.
Simple response is something like distinction “primary and secondary qualities” that was made in 17th century.
Sure colours are secondary qualities produced by our nervous system. But electromagnetic radiation, and the different wavelengths our nervous system uses these colours to label it when it presents this information to our consciousness – this radiation itself is a primary quality that exists not less whether people looking at it or not.
More important than all the techniques -although I don’t know what this all has to with the topic- is that Dostoevsky is, like Melville or Nietzsche, writing from a primitive prophetic mind, an approach which is, perhaps, better suited to religious texts, both poetic & prose, than to overwhelmingly secular novel.
Howard Bloom has finely observed this:
Wrong approach. He tries to apply his, now dated knowledge to a vision of life & cosmos-and fails. If one tries to prove/disprove with all the arsenal of newest theories (even those proven to work & explain) his Weltanschauung, he will inevitably lose.
Hmmm. I’m actually in better shape than I was when I worked. I have time to go to the gym on a regular basis. I wonder if there are any data on obesity rate differences between working and SAH moms within countries.
I personally would like to see women do economically productive work in the home. In my ideal world, men would do steady jobs, with health benefits, etc. Women would do temporary or contingent work. That way, the family doesn’t become dependent on her income, but there is a little extra for luxuries or even just unexpected expenses. Also, women would have the skills to support themselves if need be.
I would also note that opportunities for casual, skilled work would be more plentiful for women but for cheap imports. Things like making clothes or even computer repair could potentially be viable if everything wasn’t so cheap because of foreign sweatshop labor.
I will keep her in my prayers.
I generally disagree, but I get where you’re coming from. Historically, of course, women did work. I think its really difficult to draw direct conclusions from the past because, as they say, the past is a different country and things are really so wildly different. Women were an important, essential part of the domestic economy then and this is highly tied to extended families, but this is also highly tied to an agricultural existence. The closest you can see in modern-day to women’s roles a few hundred years ago would be Amish societies, and the women work harder than most modern men.
The only women who didn’t work, and signaled heavily for that, were rich women or nobility of some sort. They had an entire social dynamic though, and indeed, Paglia talks about the entire chamber of “women’s spaces” and sacredness that existed then. Its all pretty much wrecked by modernity.
That said, there are ancient societies where women were more independent of men – most African societies, in fact. Its pretty unpleasant overall. I think its fair to say that civilization as we know it is made by men; less glamorously, civilization really exists as a form of agreed oppression of some sort. I can’t recall the name now, but there’s this reactionary Russian writer who talks about how equality is death: the body is an excellent example of despotism of the cells allocating some cells to some roles, and other cells to other roles. But in glorious death we can find equality and non-despotic freedom of the cells to do whatever each one wants.
So no, I think that roles are important. If I was a magical grand poohbah, I’d seriously consider keeping the world in permanent 1950s or so, allowing a few women to stand out if they wanted to, but never letting feminism become more than an interesting fringe philosophy. I’d also bring back the domestic economy, too. But the world isn’t static, and here we are, so that’s life.
Since you mentioned your personal life, I’ll add mine. My mother didn’t work much, but she was deeply unpleasant as a person, I’d say and any independence that she had made her worse. When I went to look for someone to marry, I consciously sought someone who would be definitely anti-feminism and much more into being dependent, which I’m happy to say that I have found and all in all, things seem a lot happier for it. Certainly at this moment, with a young baby and all, the idea that she should work outside of home seems insane – both to her and to myself; our friends which have a similar situation use day care and it significantly depersonalizes both the childcare experience, as well as just exposes to a lot more less than loving people.
fwiw, female participation in Japan isn’t really high; its a deceptive number due to the vast tendency to setup part time jobs for everyone(only in Japan will you find women working as elevator operators). Most real power is maintained by (a few) men, and in the tradition of actual patriarchy, its only a small elite as well who arrange things through cliques heavily centered around drinking, which naturally excludes women(and most men). And if they really need something done about a someone who causes too much trouble, the Yazuka will take care of it. So it has its own immune system of sorts against busybodies.
China had/has something similar, but due to communism, its much less stable and isn’t really centered around ritual and tradition that Japan has, beyond ganbei. Its unfortunate. Its also unfortunate that it seems to be losing control.
I didn’t know that Hugo had much influence on Dostoevsky and quick googling didn’t turn up anything. Can you link me to anything that details that further? That’s quite interesting.
The Amish are a poor choice of example. They only survive by having very large numbers of children, most of whom abandon their religion and their community. The Amish appear to be successful, but they aren’t really.
Arranged marriages are not an alien tradition. Arranged marriages do not necessarily imply coercion, it’s more a matter of applying pressure to prevent young people from making dumb choices. That’s very much part of western cultural tradition.
Our existing model of marriage is clearly not working. Why not return to an earlier western model that did work?
Marriage is a contract. It is inherently transactional.
You’re playing semantics. It’s not really a contract like any other. It is a sacrament.
Until recently all women who married did so to a large extent for financial support. Many still do. Does that mean that all women in the past were prostitutes?
Gold-diggers have been despised by both men and women when they’ve practised deception. But when they’re entirely honest and up-front about it I doubt that most people are seriously bothered by it.
Most people like to think that they marry for love . That’s why so many marriages fail. It’s not a good basis for a successful marriage. Firstly, because when you’re young you can’t tell the difference between love and lust. And secondly because decisions made on emotional grounds usually turn out badly.
It’s wiser to be a bit more hardheaded about marriage. And there’s nothing wrong with taking into account the man’s ability to support a family, just as there’s nothing wrong with taking into account the morals of the prospective spouse.
I’m flattered that you’ve awarded me a doctorate. But you are mistaken.
False. The vast majority of Amish youth are baptized and married in the Church. Most of the minority who leave the Church become Mennonites. Yes, they are successful.
What kind of “pressure” did you have in mind?
(1) You haven’t shown any evidence of this “earlier Western model” you claim exists.
(2) Assuming it did exist, you haven’t demonstrated that it “worked.”
(3) Even if it did “exist” and “work” better than what we have now, you haven’t demonstrated any need for it.
If you advocate more repressive measures than are necessary to ensure the wellbeing of our people, what you are doing is, in effect, being vindictive.
In mediaeval times it was quite common for marriages to be arranged by the parents but the marriage only went ahead if both parties consented. In other words these were not forced marriages. Some pressure would certainly have been brought to bear on the young people to accept a suitable sensible marriage but both the woman and the man could refuse to consent. In which case Mom and Dad would look for another more suitable partner.
That’s pretty much what I would advocate. Arranged, but not forced, marriages.
Do you really believe that, until recently, all women married men they didn’t love for three hots and a cot? I’m pretty sure you don’t really believe that.
I would discourage my daughters from marrying an older, established man. On some level, he would always view her as a dependent at best. It’s much better to marry a young, poor man, and build a life together.
There is only one good basis for a successful marriage: a commitment on the part of both parties to keep their vows. That’s it.
If you don’t have that, the marriage is going to fail.
From now on, I’ll just call you Doom.
One question I’ve never had answered about this idea of “arranged marriage” with a man who can support the bride financially is what this man is supposed to have been doing throughout his twenties. Was he pumping and dumping? Hiring prostitutes?
This model of marriage is inextricably bound up with the very ugly and unjust wife/whore dichotomy. There are women you marry, and then there are women you use for sex while you’re preparing to get married. I see no compelling case for going back to that.
P.S. Along with all of that goes the old sexual double standard. Experienced women are “used up sluts” or “damaged goods.” OTOH, boys will be boys, right?
Yep. White sharia might not be achievable but it’s something to aspire to.
Feminism has made women miserable. That’s the bottom line. It’s a failed ideology. A move back towards a much more traditional approach is the only chance for women to escape the misery that feminism has inflicted on them.
Feminism is based on the belief that women are inferior to men and should therefore aspire to become men. Feminism is based on contempt for women. The feminist ideal is that a woman should be a man with a vagina.
Happiness, for both men and women, requires us to accept that men and women are radically different. Traditional social structures understood this. Traditional sex roles are based on this understanding. They are reality-based (whereas feminism angrily rejects reality). A man can only be happy and fulfilled as a man. A woman can only be happy and fulfilled as a woman.
Except that you’ll get nothing but more of the same if you don’t STFU about White Sharia. If you were hurting only yourself, I wouldn’t GAF.
That’s actually a very sexist argument. It’s typical of feminism. It disparages the kinds of subjects that women are actually interested in and implies that they’re not “practical” subjects. It implies that the subjects that men are interested in are naturally superior to the things that interest women. It suggests that women should be encouraged to become pretend men.
It’s a fine example of the misogyny that lurks at the dark twisted heart of feminism.
Our culture suffers from an underappreciation for the “feminine principle” – and feminism is a hatred of the “true feminine”.
Not to give too much credence to the politicized notion of “toxic masculinity”, but there is some truth to the notion – and feminism is ironically a manifestation of it!
Asian cultures manage to integrate the “feminine principle” far better – the men appear superficially softer and more feminine, but actually fulfill the traditional masculine role far better than Western men, who are all too often dominated by women despite their “hard” exterior.
In the West, the concept of the “gentleman” was a successful attempt to integrate the feminine principle into the male ideal – isn’t it interesting that feminists did NOT try and imitate the healthy “gentleman” ideal in their masculinization project but rather chose the most primitive and harsh version maleness to imitate?
My thought is that obesity has more to do with genes and diet.
There is the example of some of the islands in the Pacific. Samoa sends a very disproportionate amount of players to the NFL. It’s thought that the puny people died on the boat, leaving only the big and fatter people to settle the island. They also eat a lot of fatty cuts of meat.
I imagine the desert of the Middle East might be a somewhat similar environment, where there’s a natural survivability bias for those who are able to put on weight. They also eat a lot of fast food – it being more of a novelty there.
The US gets a lot of heat for obesity, but what Europeans don’t understand is that most of that is demographics. Blacks and Hispanics tend to be fatter. American whites are not very different from Europeans. Though many are still fat, it’s not many more than Europeans.
While there are overweight people there, in Sweden people are mostly healthy.
However, when I saw fat women it would overwhelmingly be hijabi housewifes – probably because of a combination of a sedentary lifestyle and unhealthy food.
The young ones would usually be thin – but as soon as they got to a marriageable age – ballooning would ensue.
With men the ratio would be slightly more even, but on average Swedes would still be a lot healthier than foreigners.
Although Scandinavians are in general very healthy – I was surprised when I went to Britain and saw so many fat people there.
I don’t think you need modern scientific knowledge, to see Protagoras’s position (as presented by Plato) view, is too simple.
It’s something people – of his era itself – would feel leads to need for primary and secondary qualities distinction.
You know if tree falls in an empty forest, it makes a sound? Yes – the air will vibrate (primary quality) . But no – it won’t create the perception of noise in anyone’s brain (secondary quality).
(This unless you assume you are living in a video game – which was something similar to Berkeley’s belief).
Also I think these topics are universal ones – people in every society must think these topics.
We almost all think about this stuff as children without any need for culture or education.
Hugo was a favourite writer and hero of Dostoevsky, and Dostoevsky also talks about using his techniques in a lot of his own works.
There is preface* Dostoevsky wrote for the translation of Notre-Dame , but I’m not sure they are available in English.
Because of previous censorship, Hugo’s novels was only first published in Russian language in 1860s, by Dostoevsky in his journal “Vremya”.
Of course, all the literary world of that time was reading in French, so the censorship of translations was not too important and most would have already read Hugo in French. But it’s still obviously important action for Dostoevsky to be the first to publish Hugo’s earlier novels into Russian language.
*( https://rvb.ru/dostoevski/01text/vol11/1862/88.htm )
Dostoevsky’s greatest talent – writing very addictive stories.
It’s why he’s the most popular author of teenagers – he allows you to lose yourself and become completely addicted in his plots.
From university and work experience – women who are actually doing engineering kind of fields, usually seem more interested in the work and projects than the normal level.
A main difference with women’s intellectual style – is usually they are more conventional, unoriginal, rule following and mentally narrow. Also they often have “inferiority complex” which makes them study more carefully than other people in the course. (I know some girls obsessed in computer science, who read the textbooks cover to cover – but despite being not intelligent or interesting in any other area).
In most engineering fields, you don’t have to be a genius – just pedantic and trained/knowledgeable people. It’s really not a job type with any real barriers to increase the amount of women. The important thing is to get more of them to study it in the beginning (once initial difficult passed, it becomes very conventional form of study).
On the actual courses, you’ll often find girls are actually only ones who are pedantic enough to complete all the exercises in the back of textbook.
My experience with female programmers is not hugely positive. They’re somewhat capable, but ultimately uninterested in their work, and bring a lot of problems here in the US because that same inferiority complex makes them claim things well beyond their capabilities. I know a girl who claimed to be a “fullstack developer” despite just knowing some Javascript, and became infuriated with me when I did her entire semester-long project in a single, um, caffeine-powered night.
Exceptions are for UI programming and design, which they(and gays, for that matter) are really quite good at. Men are, as a general rule, bad at design.
Ultimately, I think Damore is correct on this; its mostly due to interest. I follow some other crowds: engineering, avionics, robotics, etc. You really don’t see women there, until it becomes a “hip” thing, nerding out for the sake of nerding out, talking about heat sinks and fantasizing about engineering thing just really isn’t very interesting for the vast majority of women.
Another factor with many Muslims might be their predilection to carry the sickle-cell gene. Those who are hetero, are probably somewhat naturally more listless, than those who lack the allele.
Probably also mitochondria, Europeans likely having been selected to put out more bodyheat, and thus burn more energy.
What explains the differences between Europeans, I don’t know, but it is true that their diets differ. If there is some sort of natural political difference, it is tempting to link the two. I find that many on the Left espouse purity of food in place of spiritual purity.
Of course, in some countries, they ride bikes a lot instead of using cars, but I can’t say from experience whether that includes Scandinavia, though I imagine it does. From talking to people, I would guess it is not as true in England as it is in Germany. I’ve wondered if it had anything to do with the war leveling cities and allowing the street grid to be remade, but I suppose Europeans have ridden bikes for longer than the postwar period.
the western tradition is different to most other places – arranged marriages are the norm most places but in Europe it was mostly only aristos who had arranged marriages
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hajnal_line
Danes are obsessed with cycling.
Other Scandis, not so much.
The only sacraments are baptism, the eucharist, and penance. Marriage is a non-sacramental rite.
Illiterate Papist swine merely pretend otherwise.
Come on, from a Lutheran we’re expecting stronger than that. Tell us what you really think.
My experience – girls usually trying harder, while having a more boring view of the subject, and more methodical working through the course. At university, I know girls who did very well in exams, and got better jobs after. There are even some girls which are strangely talented in maths aspects.
Deficiency is usually they are more narrow-minded, and not seeing a larger picture, or interconnection with other topics. This is probably linked with general lack of creativity and unoriginality amongst women.
Also women usually have a more concrete and practical approach, and want to go home on time. Whereas if I am looking at a subject, I want an abstract view, and happy to stay up all night.
Of course, if a job requires leadership skill, or creativity – women will usually be inherently disadvantaged. Even clever women, are also usually strangely uncreative and rule-following – (but creativity is also useless in most jobs).
Situation in Google you reference is funny. Google has an advertising monopoly, and is a money creating machine. They don’t need creative employee – and they could now hire only female dwarves, or only one-armed Africans, -and they would probably be doing not any worse than they are now (they need less “creative” employees – as all their “creative projects” have been just wasting money).
Also is logical they fire this guy who criticized their political conformity, as Google’s monopoly position depends more on political generosity from authorities, than the abilities of its employees.
I’m not Catholic. I’m just intelligent enough to recognize that the Catholics (and the Orthodox) are correct on this issue, and Luther was wrong.
“What God has joined, let no man put asunder.”
Sorry, but when God “joins” two people in marriage, that can’t be but sacramental, which I’m sure is perfectly obvious to you as it is to every other intelligent life form on the face of the Earth.
Women are really good at design and UI; I would put money on this, and hire women preferentially when it comes to UI. I find few men have that grasp of clean design work and making things intuitive, one could argue that this is an human interest field. Arguably, if fashion is any guide, gays would also do very well at this but I don’t have any experience to extrapolate on.
Not quite that bad – yet. They still have a pretty strong machine learning/AI department, not staffed with affirmative action jokes. Microsoft arguably has reached that point, though, its basically an institution that just collects money.
Its interesting when it reaches that point, though. There’s still a lot of fighting, but now its internal, so creating in-group cliques becomes very useful to capture more of the budget. In all these super-established companies in the US, you’re going to see groups like “Courageous Women” or so on, so each section can fight for more of a share of the pie.
A few years ago, Google effectively blackmailed a politician with no real consequences(the guy was doing some shady things, used gmail, and…poor fucker). So its a complicated relationship.
Silicon Valley is an interesting, weird place. Both Mr. Karlin and I have a lot of experience with it, and I would argue that it has touched us and made us, as they say, stranger.
America also full of fat people with European ancestry, so the fashion of being a human whale in America – a cultural difference, not a genetic one.
Although it is true that the rest of world is getting more fat each year. On the OECD reports, even in Mediterranean countries, you can follow the rising obesity in each year’s reports.
A couple of European countries – Hungary and UK – are not so far behind US rates.
https://i.imgur.com/cGUk1uM.jpg
–
Projections in 2017 report.
https://i.imgur.com/PZqfq0X.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/cGUk1uM.jpg
Worth noting: all the nations of the Anglosphere are in the top ten fattest. Ranking by obesity rates:
United States
New Zealand
Australia
Canada
United Kingdom
Ireland ranks right below UK. What is it about the people of the British Isles (English, Scottish, Irish, Welsh) that makes them the fattest people of Europe, the Americas (and the world?).
In stark contrast China, which is expected to soon challenge the Anglosphere for the #1 spot, has one of the lowest obesity rates in the world.
But why? Why should we want more of them to study engineering? There will always be a tiny minority of women who are interested in such things and if those women want to become engineers good luck to them.
But why is it desirable to encourage more women to do so? Isn’t it wicked and oppressive to try to push women into doing things they don’t want to do? Isn’t it insulting to women since it suggests that the only interests worth pursuing are male interests? Isn’t that kind of misogynistic?
And if women in general have no affinity with engineering then by pushing them into it aren’t we setting them up to fail? Isn’t that kind of misogynistic as well?
It’s the New Puritanism. Lips that touch sugar shall never touch mine.
They’re more adapted to meat and dairy (high fat diet) and less adapted to grains (high carb diet).
They weren’t fat until the switch to a low fat / high sugar diet in the 1970s
https://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/images/2012/08/blogs/democracy-america/oecd_obesity_2009.png
So you’re a heretic.
You’re going to Hell Rosie.
Curious that in James Bond movies from 1973 and 1974, when US obesity rate was under 15%, there is a stereotypical “fat American” character – a sheriff from the South. Were Southerners known for fatness then, or policemen?
https://www.mi6-hq.com/images/stills/xlald_s_23_500.jpg.pagespeed.ic.iLH9eRFMMO.jpg
cops maybe – all those donuts?
The South is easily the fattest region of the United States. The 9 fattest states in America are all in the South:
https://infographic.statista.com/normal/chartoftheday_10944_america_s_fattest_states_n.jpg
It’s useful work, which translates to/ economic benefits (for employee and for the economy as whole).
Also this kind of education increases the level of knowledge and education level of the public, raising the society.
And doesn’t require life-conquering interest also. Just studying with some upper-medium level of motivation and conscientiousness. A lot of girls want to be good students.
All this means good idea (for women and society) to raise women’s participation.
But also even for male students at university – more women in these fields, are actually improving the environment in the course – just by balancing the demographics.
Well, sometimes life is “misogynistic”. There’s only so many jobs for Kim Kardashian, or to be a fashion blogger. And, in reality, plenty of women who are not idiots and want to do more relevant and interesting kinds of work. And an economy with a more skilled and disciplined labour force, will generally receive more investment and attract jobs in this area.
But women should not be focusing on careers. Women have been pushed into this. They have been made to feel worthless unless they have a career. They haver been made to feel worthless if they prefer to concentrate on being wives and mothers. This pressure on women to conform to male norms is pure misogyny. It’s stupid, it’s destructive for women, it’s destructive for families, it’s unnecessary.
We don’t need women in the workforce. The push for more women in the workforce comes from capitalists who want a more docile workforce who will work for lower wages. It never was intended to be for the benefit of women. Like the rest of the feminist agenda it was one big con.
We need fewer women in the workforce. Then it might be possible for men to get paid enough money to support a family. Which would mean more children. Which would mean our society might have a chance at survival.
Dostoevsky’s plots were always very derivative of French writers of the time. Ironically, for all his messianic Slavophile talk, he is easily the most western in style of all the major Russian writers. He was not a true original in the sense that Chekhov, Gogol or Lermontov were.
There is a clear correlation between the fat states and the red states. What the South is to the Republicans, the West Coast and the Northeast is to the Democrats. Look at the difference in obesity rates between the Republican base and the Democrat base:
http://calorielab.com/news/wp-images/post-images/fattest-states-2017-big.jpg
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-aEY1QcflpWs/WClaJQE1yRI/AAAAAAAAALs/ZVEDc-aF4aECXJAuFr-FsZGJ2l9_9P-LgCLcB/s640/electoral%2Bmap3.png
Hillary won the 5 leanest (4 by a landslide):
Colorado 48% vs 43%
Washington D.C. 90% vs 4%
Hawaii 62% vs 30%
Massachusetts 60% vs 33%
California 62% vs 32%
Trump won the 5 fattest states (all by a landslide):
West Virginia 68% vs 26%
Mississippi 58% vs 40%
Louisiana 58% vs 38%
Arkansas 60% vs 34%
Alabama 62% vs 34%
Hmmm, interesting….
Bliss, you are missing the woods for the trees.
You should post a map of black Americans. That explains it a bit better than party affiliation.
If they are not working, what do they do all day? (Sit with nothing to do and go crazy?).
In modern society, children are in school all day. (And I’m happy I went to school, and was not at home with my mother).
As for relation of this to capitalism. Well I think capitalism is good, but to look at the alternative.
Recall in the Soviet era. Women have 1 year of maternity leave. Average family has 2-3 children. And at the same time, workforce participation of women was the highest in the world.
Generally, in Soviet era women were being given worse jobs though – which means that the average of quality of men’s jobs could be higher. (The latter is not such a bad idea).
That’s one of the advantages of Soviet era – that women were complaining that they were working too hard (the joke is they were “too equal”). Women were about 50% of industrial labour force by 1970s. These were married women, with children and jobs – all together. It’s the kind of “feminism” which is not for lazy people.
Explain this:
In that map the fattest state in America,West Virginia, is one of the whitest states (~94% white, 3.6% black), and it gave Trump his biggest margin of victory.
Kentucky is 88% white and 9% black and it is the 6th fattest state in the South (and the US).
North Dakota is only ~1% black and Iowa is ~2.7% black, and they are the joint 2nd fattest states outside the South. The fattest state outside the South is Indiana (84% white, 9% black).
Washington D.C. is ~50% black and 39% white and it the second leanest in the US.
New York is the 10th leanest state and it is ~20% black.
I imagine, all other things being equal, rural tends to be a bit fatter than urban. Car ownership probably promotes fatness. ND is too cold in winter to walk anywhere.
I’m frankly hard-pressed to explain DC, other than to say, I’ll bet the poor people there have lower ownership than rural poor, and there are also a lot of rich people there too, unlike WV. DC is the golden trough.
You need to control for the effects of race/ethnic background and age.
Here are obesity rates by county:
https://inlandnw.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/map_county_obese_2007.jpg
Generally, blacks and rural whites tend to be obese. Southern states have lots of both. Look at Alabama and Mississippi.
Mormons and New Englanders are exceptions. The Mormon religion seems to promote physical fitness and self-care. Lots of naturally beautiful, healthy-looking people in Utah. Rural whites in New England tend to be wealthy and have the time and money to enjoy outdoor activities (hiking, cross-country skiing, downhill skiing, etc.).
The Hawaiian map surprises me a bit. I suppose it must come down to the many Asians and Filipinos who inhabit the state.
What percentage of male homosexuals are celibate? Probably much lower that the percentage that would try to fuck an alligator.
On the maps of the US, kinship intensity, cousin marriage, even polygamy there is a red splotch where Savannah GA and Charelston SC are. What is that about? What explains it?
Greek architecture did far more in advancing interior space which led to stunning achievements like the Pantheon by the Romans which was the largest dome in the world for like 1800 years. Creating interior spaces is a far more humanistic endeavor than just monuments that are designed to be viewed from the exterior and which have almost no space inside for activities. Greek architecture which led directly to Roman focused more on creating interior spaces for people to use for their purposes rather than just showcasing images of the elite.
Isaac Newton conformist? Socrates conformist? Voltaire conformist? Elizabeth I of England conformist? Martin Luther conformist?
Sure lots of folks in the west are conformist. That is not remarkable. It is remarkable that there are far more significant non-conformers than in other places. These people are not criminals. They are not aberrations. They are features not bugs. So, yes, the west is different in that it is less conforming that others. That is not the same as lacking conformity in general. The difference is the rate. And yes, there are more independent thinkers in the west than elsewhere and it has been so for a long time.
(((Hollywood))) was (and is) known for hating:
1. Whites in general
2. Rural whites even more
3. Southern whites especially
When looking at fictional portrayals, it’s often more productive to look at the mindset of the people that produced them, rather than to assume that they are documentaries and proceed on that assumption.