.

[Leyrann]

The idea of nuclear fusion is spread by applying for a grant & writing papers, not by writing a theatre play or singing a song to your professor

Nuclear fusion requires a sophisticated scientific community.
The sophistic scientific community that we have comes from the Enlightenment views of freedom and rationality.
The Enlightenment views on freedom and rationality emerged from (among other things) the Scientific Revolution.
The Scientific Revolution was kickstarted by the Renaissance.
The Renaissance occurred in part because people were impressed by ancient Greek and Roman culture, including Greek theatre plays.

So actually, you can lead nuclear fusion back to writing theatre plays.

Anyway, can we please get back on topic for the thread?

 

[RedCourtJester]

The Scientific Revolution was kickstarted by the Renaissance.
The Renaissance occurred in part because people were impressed by ancient Greek and Roman culture, including Greek theatre plays.

These last two are painting with extremely broad brushes, not to mention are abstracting pretty far away from specifically rational thought/philosophy.

I do still think there is a throughline back to Greek philosophy/science, but you are lumping it together with Greek art in a way that conflates the art as scientific precedent.

The fine arts certainly do help attract attention to the ideas of who came before, and occasionally communicate rational/scientific ideas of the time. But they are not, in themselves, science.

Science is perspicative, it is about exploring/discovering reality and deciding, within the limits of empiricism and reason, matters of fact. Art is reflective or aspirational, it is about expression of ideas and emotions, it is about beauty and entertainment, all of which are largely subjective or outright fantasy. The two can intersect, but just because they occasionally intersect--and in the past, were more easily confused for each other--does not mean they are at all the same.

 

[Gori the Grey]

So sometimes "culture" (1) is our biggest container of all for describing a particular people and everything about them: American culture. Nuclear fusion would fall into this broadest of meanings because there are some people, institutions in the larger society who are capable of nuclear fusion.

Sometimes "culture" (2) is a kind of equivalent for "ideology": the beliefs, value-systems, perspectives, starting assumptions, biases of a particular group of people. Nuclear fusion would fall within this definition of culture, just insofar as it is something that Americans think is worthwhile, that the physical sciences are activities worth pursuing.

Sometimes "culture" (3), in a more limited definition, refers to certain widely shared rituals and practices that characterize one group of people and often differentiate it from other groups. These practices generally reinforce (2), the society's ideology.

Sometimes, "culture" (4) in a different definition refers to works of literature, music, painting, sculpture. These exist inside (1) (they are produced or consumed by members of the society in question); they generally emerge from and reflect (2) the ideology of that society; they often have links to (3) the rituals and practices of the culture.

The areas mapped out by each definition can overlap, interpenetrate or one be nested inside the other.

Sometimes culture (5) means "high culture" in particular: the highly esteemed and super-sophisticated instances of (4). Not too much any more, since we have "pop culture," and we regard it as having its own value. But a trace of this definition lingers in a descriptor like "cultured." If you call someone that, they are generally versed in the works of high-culture, not pop culture.

Mostly by culture, Civ means (4) and (5). For (1), they just use "civilization" itself. For (2), they mostly use "social policy."

 

[RedCourtJester]

So sometimes "culture" (1) is our biggest container of all for describing a particular people and everything about them: American culture. Nuclear fusion would fall into this broadest of meanings because there are some people, institutions in the larger society who are capable of nuclear fusion.

Sometimes "culture" (2) is a kind of equivalent for "ideology": the beliefs, value-systems, starting assumptions of a particular group of people. Nuclear fusion would fall within this definition of culture, just insofar as it is something that Americans think is worthwhile.

Sometimes "culture" (3), in a more limited definition, refers to certain widely shared rituals and practices that characterize one group of people and often differentiate it from other groups.

Sometimes, "culture" (4) in a different definition refers to works of literature, music, painting, sculpture. These exist inside (1) (they are produced or consumed by members of the society in question); they generally emerge from and reflect (2) the ideology of that society; they often have links to (3) the rituals and practices of the culture.

The areas mapped out by each definition can overlap, or one be nested inside the other.

Sometimes culture (5) means "high culture" in particular. Not too much any more, since we have "pop culture," and we regard it as having its own value. But a trace of this definition lingers in a descriptor like "cultured." If you call someone that, they are generally versed in the works of high-culture, not pop culture.

Mostly by culture, Civ means (4) and (5). For (1), they just use "civilization" itself. For (2), they mostly use "social policy."

And sometimes culture just means a cult!

I actually like "cult" as a sort of jumping off point for culture, because what is a cult but a group of people who all subscribe to the same common fiction? In that respect, it definitely encompasses (2) ideologies, (3) rituals/superstitions, (4)/(5) participation in group art and/or reverence for certain artists. And even (1) could arguably apply inasmuch as science can be part of a cult of nationalist fiction, or even a rationalist ideology.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Well, cult comes with its own whole set of complicating issues, not least that most people regard it as pejorative.

Most people are happy to count themselves as a part of a culture, or more than one sub-culture, in fact. Almost nobody is willing to say he or she is a member of a cult.

 

[RedCourtJester]

Well, cult comes with its own whole set of complicating issues, not least that most people regard it as pejorative.

Most people are happy to count themselves as a part of a culture, or more than one. Almost nobody is willing to say he or she is a member of a cult.

Normalize being cultish! It's an extremely human thing lol. I view many communities as uniting around what I call "cults of fiction."

 

[Arent11]

Yeah ok, I think the original intention of the thread has been served & the discussion how culture should be represented in civ is interesting but should probably be done in a separate thread.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Normalize being cultish! It's an extremely human thing lol.

My own preference is to ground the word in the verb: make it something you do rather than something that just is, ambiently, around one.

Go cultivate your knowledge of music or literature, or some ritual that gives you and a community some meaningful connection.

Arent isn't wrong (you arent, I might say, if I was addressing you directly) that we have drifted away from the OP. And that matters, maybe more than usual, because its such a cool OP, saucily reminding us that America is a

 

[pokiehl]

Moderator Action: Please return to the topic of the thread. - Pokiehl

 

[chaosprophet]

To be back on topic on a somewhat new info:

Now they're making movement so a unit has movement left they can't use to go in the direction you want because of of how terrain works!? Will this game come with insurance for my sore fingers and broken space bar after playing a whole night!?

 

[AntSou]

Where Napoleon? Civ VII, two Napoleon. Great success. Civ VI, no Napoleon. Very sad. If no Napoleon, no buy. If one Napoleon, I buy two for two Napoleon. Expensive, very bad.

 

[Dale]

Civ6 development cancelled due to the failure of Civ7.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I can't believe they brought Gandhi back as the only non-leader, leader.

 

[Arent11]

To be back on topic on a somewhat new info:

Now they're making movement so a unit has movement left they can't use to go in the direction you want because of of how terrain works!? Will this game come with insurance for my sore fingers and broken space bar after playing a whole night!?

Yeah, I hope they will return to "stop on last tile" in the upcoming civ 4 or Alpha Centauri And maybe they should give infantry units just one movement, having two they feel like cavalry.

Oh, and how about inventing ships that can *TRANSPORT* units? You know, instead of this weird "embarkation", you could actually play a naval invasion & your units would be vulnerable while on the transport.

Oh, and why not allow several units in one tile? I mean, these are countless square km, why wouldn't huge armies fit in a single tile?

There is so much room for improvement after civ 7 and civ 6

 

[Arent11]

You mean like a worse version of what commanders did in Civ7? Now that they've removed them, you want to add them back in, but only while land units are embarked? Seems like you want to replace the full step backwards that Civ6 is taking from Civ7 with a half step backwards, rather than walking forward

Nah, if you want units, commanders, settlers, whatever to cross the sea, you need ships. No embarkation. Could the Romans and the Mongols just "embark" to invade England & Japan? No, they couldn't.

No "embarked" legion that does Magellan's voyage, thank you very much. If you want to cross oceans, you need advanced ships.

But you can keep your commanders. That was one of the few good ideas civ 7 had. I don't want people saying I'm all negative

 

[Arent11]

But we're getting off topic again with your criticisms of Civ5 and Civ7: the aim of this thread was to criticise / praise Civ6 from the point of view of how it differs from Civ7.

In that case I'll refrain from praising civ 6 because there is too much I dislike in that game as well

That's like having a child choose between broccoli (Civ 7) and carrots (Civ 6) & pretending strawberry cake (Alpha Centauri) doesn't exist

 

[AntSou]

Nah, if you want units, commanders, settlers, whatever to cross the sea, you need ships. No embarkation. Could the Romans and the Mongols just "embark" to invade England & Japan? No, they couldn't.

You are correct in your observation that humans cannot turn into ships made of wood.

I'm just not sure how this is relevant to anything.

 

[Gori the Grey]

The other leaders stare straight at me, but I never get to see myself interacting with them. It's kind of unnerving. Like I have only a ghostly existence of my own.

 

[Siptah]

The other leaders stare straight at me, but I never get to see myself interacting with them. It's kind of unnerving. Like I have only a ghostly existence of my own.

No, no, you are sitting in that black room with them. But it doesn't have mirrors and it's obviously a first person experience. You have to go there often. I mean, reassuring everyone that you are still friends every few years. That's what leader do, right? Even if it tires your mouse finger. I don't know who thought that this was a good change.

And don't get me started on the world congress! (really, don't). We had this nice diplomatic currency that was used for so many inter-civ-relation acts. And now it's for voting in the congress??? And you don't even know what you are voting for???

 

[chaosprophet]

No, no, you are sitting in that black room with them. But it doesn't have mirrors and it's obviously a first person experience. You have to go there often. I mean, reassuring everyone that you are still friends every few years. That's what leader do, right? Even if it tires your mouse finger. I don't know who thought that this was a good change.

And then you will know have to go check one by one to see who can give you a better deal instead of trading resources with routes and using influence, so time consuming!!