I have played Civ 2, but it is a long time ago and I only got around to fiddling around on the lower levels.
I am sorry for that!
I did enjoy the Fundamentalism and the fundamentalists or fanatics or what they were called. Being in a game I would think that it couldn't hurt. Civ 2 is a long time back.
I thought it was very interesting, although I now have quite enough with getting to grips with the Civ 4 religious civics.
The Fundamentalist government in Civ2 had a number of VERY important trade-off's. First, there was no unhappiness, and improvements and Wonders that reduced unhappiness (but NOT created outright happiness) instead produced gold each turn. The Fanatic unit, which was similar in nature to a Rifleman, but certainly less powerful than a Marine or Mech. Inf., were all supported free (you still had to build them though). However, the biggest compensation was the science penalty - a flat -30% - which could cripple you at higher difficulty levels or in multi-player.
Christianity began with greater diversity as various peoples were more or less free to interpret Jesus as they pleased. Polytheism led to monotheism so religious plurality gave way to religious dogma.
This is an incorrect statement, unless you're referring to the Aton, Sol Invictus, and other short-lived cults developed among polytheist societies. Monotheism moreso suppresses and steamrollers polytheism as it spreads, but doesn't actually really grow from it meaningfully, except retaining some traditions around sacred holidays and rituals on a regional level that become merely esthetic, stripped of their original meaning and purpose (a la, the Christmas Tree. the Easter Egg, Afghan and Turkic Tribal Traditions, Nowruz, etc.).
Depends on the era, the region, and how you're defining plurality.
Religious pluralism was (obviously) extraordinarily common in Europe-Asia-Africa in trade ports and in regions where cultural groups frequently came into contact. For example in pre-Reconquista Spain, in the Balkans, in the Levant and North Africa, along the Swahili Coast, and in Southeast Asia. It's forgotten all-to-often, and apparently bears mentioning that there were Jewish communities all over Europe for nearly the entirety of European history and, although Jewish history is, obviously, punctuated by manifold brutal and horrific pogroms, expulsions, forced relocations, forced conversions, and violence, those moments were by no means chronic for all times in all places, and many urban centers in Europe enjoyed lengthy periods of mutually amicable pluralism between Jews and Christians.
Also of course the United Provinces was founded and existed as a country with total religious pluralism as its guiding principle.
One really good place to go if you're actually interested in learning about historical religious pluralism would be to look at David Nirenberg, particularly the influential Communities of violence; Persecution of Minorities in the Middle Ages, as well as his more recent Neighboring Faiths: Christianity, Islam and Judaism in the Middle Ages and Today.
What I meant is what I said in #35: I "believe" peoples were more homogeneous in other ages.
They were both homogeneous as a people, and also there was usually one religion in each state.
Foreign religions were sometimes assimilated as other names of old gods.
Is that correct?
Also, I think there is nothing wrong with fundamentalism (at least as I understand it) as a priciple. As long as you are open for discussion of other ideas. It means that you have reached a high level of certainty, and are interested in putting into effect those ideas etc.
In Civ I believe it is quite normal to have some firm agenda and therefore be fundmantalist or theocratic. But it is such a swell game that you can also just go along and see what happens!
In Christian academia there were a handful of figures so influential as to be granted a 1-name epitaph. Paul was The Apostle, Averroes was The Commentator, Augustine was The Doctor. Thomas Aquinas is The Theologian.
Don't want to derail the thread, but how far forward into history does this come, I wonder. Shakespeare is The Bard. Is there anyone later than Shakespeare and before The Donald (a formulation which is telling in its own right) who gets a The X epithet?
Don't want to derail the thread, but how far forward into history does this come, I wonder. Shakespeare is The Bard. Is there anyone later than Shakespeare and before The Donald (which is telling in its own right) who gets a The epithet?
Except, on second thought, no, they're not. For my question, you have to actually, literally be one of the nouns (a commentator, a theologian) and then be regarded as the epitome of that class. Elvis isn't literally a king. That's being used metaphorically in his case.
They aren't really the same thing though. Those are just nicknames. The ones I listed are appellations that are making a statement about their importance within Christian scholasticism.
Augustine is The Doctor because his position as a Church Father (Doctor = "teacher" in Latin) is so pre-eminent that the implicit assumption when talking about a Church Father is that you must surely be talking about Augustine. Here is an example of it happening in Peter Abelard:
Cum igitur totus in superbia atque luxuria laborarem, utriusque morbi remedium divina mihi gratia licet nolenti contulit. Ac primo luxurie, deinde superbie; luxurie quidem his me privando quibus hanc exercebam; superbie vero que mihi ex litterarum maxime scientia nascebatur, iuxta illud Apostoli "Scientia inflat", illius libri quo maxime gloriabar combustione me humiliando.
Thus when I was laboring wholly in arrogance and extravagance, divine grace brought to me, however unwilling, a remedy to both ailments. First for extravagance, then for vanity; [the cure for] extravagance indeed by depriving me of those things by which I used to practice it, in the case of arrogance, however, since it was largely begotten in me from the knowledge of the writings [i.e. theology and philosophical study], as The Apostle says, "Knowledge puffs [one] up," I was therefore cured of the ailment of arrogance by humiliating me by burning that very book of which I was most proud
It's not an honorific, and it's not a nickname. It's simply a statement based on the assumption that no other Apostles matter, if you are talking about an apostle in the context of theological exegesis, you must surely be talking about Paul, and if you weren't talking about Paul, then you would specify who instead you were talking about, as, e.g. in the case of Einhard:
Colebat prae ceteris sacris et venerabilibus locis apud Romam ecclesiam beati Petri apostoli; in cuius donaria magna vis pecuniae tam in auro quam in argento necnon et gemmis ab illo congesta est
He venerated before all other sacred and worshipful places, the church of St. Peter the Apostle located in Rome. In whose treasure-chamber, a large quantity of riches – as much in gold as in silver, to say nothing of gems, was accumulated by him.
The point is that neither "The Boss" nor "The King" are comparable here. If you are talking about Apostles, then surely you mean Paul; no others matter, and if you weren't talking about Paul then you would have specified. If you were talking about Doctors then you must be talking about Augustine, because no other Doctors matter. You can't analogize this to Springsteen or Elvis. Calling Springsteen The Boss is not making a statement about his preeminence among bosses, and that no other bosses matter, likewise for Elvis and The King. These epithets only make sense in the context of talking about those people. If you, apropos of nothing, were to say "I'm a fan of The King" you would probably get a quizzical look and be asked to specify "which king"?
The Bard is a good example, though, and you can see it making the same essential point when the epithet was first attributed in David Garrick's Shakespeare Jubilee in 1769:
Be proud of the charms of your County;
Where Nature has lavished her bounty.
Where much she has given, and some to be spared
For the Bard of all bards, was a Warwickshire Bard;
Warwickkshire Bard:
Never paired;
For the Bard of all Bards, was a Warwickshire Bard
He is ascribed the epithet of The Bard because no other bard is implied to matter. If you are talking of Bards, you must surely mean Shakespeare, and if you weren't talking about Shakespeare, you would have specified.
You can see a similar epithet in Samuel Johnson's 1765 Preface to The Plays of W. Shakespeare, in which Shakespeare is called The Poet.
A comparable example in California might be referring to San Francisco as The City, again, carrying the implicit assumption that if you are talking about a city you must surely be talking about SF, as no other cities matter, and if you had meant another city you would have specified as such. But this is an extremely regional thing which exists in the hinterland of basically every major city, and Californians get pretty heavy pushback whenever they talk to non-Californians about The City referring to SF.
Yeah, I came to realize that, so I edited my post; we must have cross posted.
So I'm still interested, anyone forward in time from Shakespeare? Did one of the Enlightenment philosophers go as The Thinker? Was Napolean The General? Or is Shakespeare the latest historically to earn such an honor of being The thing he is?
I did post this over in the History Questions not Worth their own Thread thread.
I think it is actually a decent question, when did this habit end if it ended? You have gotten me interested There is little honor in my opinion though in labeling someone with an epithet in this way. It just makes me think that it is part of an old and obscure tradition! But when did this habit end?
Christianity began with greater diversity as various peoples were more or less free to interpret Jesus as they pleased. Polytheism led to monotheism so religious plurality gave way to religious dogma.
While we are free to interpret Jesus, it really has nothing to do with forming monotheism, nor dogma. Jesus was God on earth, thus only one part of God, but definitely not one in even two competing Gods, or an infinite amount of Gods. Until further revelation and physically experiencing more than one God, that multiple Gods exist is speculation. It is hard enough to accept humans have experienced one God. For theocracy to work this God would have to be revealed and experienced by all who are involved in this theocracy. Dogma is trying to retain the original while humanity evolves in totally different directions in their interpretations. And the need for someone to be in control.
I think that would rule out Islam and Christianity. Just being a representative of an unknown God does not make a Theocracy. That would be the difference between a form of government and a religion. Eastern religions, Christian and Muslim nations just let their religion dictate how they govern themselves. Religion being the lack of a physically present God.
Democracy would seem to be on the opposite end of a government spectrum. While it gives the authority to every single individual, most do not exercise that power. Or they are over ruled by the majority.
We only get polytheism and democracy the further away from God and God’s authority we go.
A comparable example in California might be referring to San Francisco as The City, again, carrying the implicit assumption that if you are talking about a city you must surely be talking about SF, as no other cities matter, and if you had meant another city you would have specified as such. But this is an extremely regional thing which exists in the hinterland of basically every major city, and Californians get pretty heavy pushback whenever they talk to non-Californians about The City referring to SF.
- Istanbul is directly from the local dialect meaning «to the city», so I suppose that's one of the most famous «the city» there is
- Rome is also «the city», come to think of it, or is that always specified as «the eternal city»?
- «the continent» refers to Europe -- at least in Europe, so maybe this is also purely regional?
I guess I can't understand how some people operate.
1. Post something somewhat ignorant
2. Read informative responses that shed light on the matter, somewhat agree with them
3. Post similar ignorant things
Maybe that's just a live demonstration of the process of education, but it does get a little absurd. It might also be a display stubbornness that's tempered by the desire to avoid confrontation, which should be a very typical thing in real life but is seldom so clearly seen around here.
I believe theocracies have fared better when it comes to the environment; the technologies non-theocracies have developed and the way they have used them have left us in a dire situation - globally.
I think any society not based on religious principles will end up as a horror show (we're in a brief interregnum where secular society doesn't seem so bad, but it will get worse).
Scotland was an intensely religious country until a couple of generations ago, and the Kirk (and its breakaways) were an important part of how society was structured, but I'm not surely how you'd clearly demonstrated that religion was the premise of Scottish society, that it represented some sort of basic axiom around which everything else was organised.
They aren't really the same thing though. Those are just nicknames. The ones I listed are appellations that are making a statement about their importance within Christian scholasticism.
Augustine is The Doctor because his position as a Church Father (Doctor = "teacher" in Latin) is so pre-eminent that the implicit assumption when talking about a Church Father is that you must surely be talking about Augustine. Here is an example of it happening in Peter Abelard:
Spoiler:
Thus when I was laboring wholly in arrogance and extravagance, divine grace brought to me, however unwilling, a remedy to both ailments. First for extravagance, then for vanity; [the cure for] extravagance indeed by depriving me of those things by which I used to practice it, in the case of arrogance, however, since it was largely begotten in me from the knowledge of the writings [i.e. theology and philosophical study], as The Apostle says, "Knowledge puffs [one] up," I was therefore cured of the ailment of arrogance by humiliating me by burning that very book of which I was most proud
It's not an honorific, and it's not a nickname. It's simply a statement based on the assumption that no other Apostles matter, if you are talking about an apostle in the context of theological exegesis, you must surely be talking about Paul, and if you weren't talking about Paul, then you would specify who instead you were talking about, as, e.g. in the case of Einhard:
Spoiler:
He venerated before all other sacred and worshipful places, the church of St. Peter the Apostle located in Rome. In whose treasure-chamber, a large quantity of riches – as much in gold as in silver, to say nothing of gems, was accumulated by him.
The point is that neither "The Boss" nor "The King" are comparable here. If you are talking about Apostles, then surely you mean Paul; no others matter, and if you weren't talking about Paul then you would have specified. If you were talking about Doctors then you must be talking about Augustine, because no other Doctors matter. You can't analogize this to Springsteen or Elvis. Calling Springsteen The Boss is not making a statement about his preeminence among bosses, and that no other bosses matter, likewise for Elvis and The King. These epithets only make sense in the context of talking about those people. If you, apropos of nothing, were to say "I'm a fan of The King" you would probably get a quizzical look and be asked to specify "which king"?
The Bard is a good example, though, and you can see it making the same essential point when the epithet was first attributed in David Garrick's Shakespeare Jubilee in 1769:
He is ascribed the epithet of The Bard because no other bard is implied to matter. If you are talking of Bards, you must surely mean Shakespeare, and if you weren't talking about Shakespeare, you would have specified.
You can see a similar epithet in Samuel Johnson's 1765 Preface to The Plays of W. Shakespeare, in which Shakespeare is called The Poet.
A comparable example in California might be referring to San Francisco as The City, again, carrying the implicit assumption that if you are talking about a city you must surely be talking about SF, as no other cities matter, and if you had meant another city you would have specified as such. But this is an extremely regional thing which exists in the hinterland of basically every major city, and Californians get pretty heavy pushback whenever they talk to non-Californians about The City referring to SF.
Actually, truth be told, there's a lot of evidence outside official scripture approved for inclusion by the Nicene Council indicating a power struggle among the Apostles for control of the early Church between Paul and Peter Simon (the ones who "won" - and probably not at all remotely the best case winner's for the religion as a whole), and then Mary Magdellon, and then Timothy, James, and Andrew, and then Joseph Barnabas and Judas (not Iskariot, but the other Judas). Calling Paul THE Apostle seems to only be because he defeated and mostly silenced his opposition, not because of his superior erudite and wise qualities as an early Church leader.
Except, on second thought, no, they're not. For my question, you have to actually, literally be one of the nouns (a commentator, a theologian) and then be regarded as the epitome of that class. Elvis isn't literally a king. That's being used metaphorically in his case.
That's actually just an old Dark Ages Germanic title of a leader who united a bunch of Germanic tribes into war and temporary political unity - usually against the Romans. A similar title originally to a Germanic version of the Mongolic/Turkic title "Khan." Goebbels just dug it up along with a lot of other pagan-era Germanic terms, iconography, and symbols (including the swatzika).
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
There is little honor in my opinion though in labeling someone with an epithet in this way. It just makes me think that it is part of an old and obscure tradition! But when did this habit end?
