How would you order the Civ 5 civilizations in their historical importance order?

I literally cannot believe anyone can be that oblivious. It's hilarious and pitiable at the same time. I legitimately don't know whether to laugh or cry.

 

It must be because I'm too excited to comment and it make me lost in comprehending your writing.

I'm not really agree with you in this, science is about methodology I guess, and Philosophy arguably is a discourse to search the methodology of truth (epistemology) not just in search or contemplating on what is truth (ontology), philosophy will not become a philosophy if it only have ontological aspect without other aspect like epistemological or in some case axiology. Well is that meant Socrates, Xenophanes and Heracleitos not a philosopher? This is the problem though with that definition. But usually Philosopher is difference than just a mere thinker that you and I can do. Philosophy is a contemplation and giving method to find the truth, sometime it can be speculative (pure reason) sometime it can be base on empirical and provable observation (again scientific!)

But how you can dismiss someone like Aristotle for example not as a scientist or doesn't have huge contribution in the field of science (of course in a very early form of science) in my view of course he is both scientist and philosophers, indeed his meteorology can be quite funny also there lots of funny statement even in his works like metaphysic (funny and so hard to understand) but keep in mind it is not because he don't use or don't have a scientific method but it is because lack of mechanical invention that help his scientific observation. And also Aristotle giving classification in the field of knowledge and science make it more organize, creating an early form of intellectual discourse (in modern day like Descrates?).

I was quite interest backthen in Philosophy, but of course in a very amateur sense. I also waiting for this forum Philosopher, Plotinus, to give his thought regarding this issue.

 

It's probably the late hour here. I'll have a look at what I wrote tomorrow. History of philosophy is also Plotinus field so I'm hoping he can make a more learned contribution and engage more fully with your points than I can.

 

of course Masada while here the sun still raise above so many hour to kill, it will be my pleasure to hear you thought regarding my commentary

 

Guys, guys... Calm down! Calm down please. You are both mistaken.

The real beginnings of science:





Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ohne6LpKFKk

 

Funny map of Europe as a Queen by Sebastian Muenster (1580):



And here the Cologne edition (1587) by Matthias Quad and Johann Bussemacher:

http://belgeo.revues.org/docannexe/image/7711/img-4.jpg

Spoiler :

 

Yet one more reason (of many) why Jesus is more influential than Shakespeare is this - there are no "Shakespeare pranks":


Link to video.

 

By the way - yet one more quotation from Friedrich Nietzsche:

"(...) It gave me pleasure to contemplate the right of the Polish nobleman to upset with his simple veto the determinations of a session; and the Pole Copernicus seemed to have made of this right against the determinations and presentations of other people, the greatest and worthiest use. (...)"

And here another version of translation of a passage already quoted before:

"(...) I am a Polish nobleman pure sang, in whom there is not the slightest admixture of bad blood, least of all German. (...)"

======================================

On the other hand, Polish historians are denying his Polish noble identity (lol):

According to Polish historian Maria Ziółkowska:

"(...) History of the Nietzsche family, which dates back to the 16th century in birth certificate registries and was also passed on in verbal tradition, shows only indigenous Germans. They were all plebeians - peasants, craftsmen: they were farmers, carpenters, shoemakers, sausage-makers. (...)"

Also Nietzsche's cousin during the 1930s researched his family history, trying to prove that there were no Poles there.

And indeed the result of that research was, that there were no Polish nobles there.

That's all nice. The problem is, that a similar investigation would prove, that many Germans are not descended from Germans at all.

So if a self-declared Pole did not descend from Poles, it still does not make him less self-declared Polish.

But I'm not surprised that his cousin in the 1930s in Nazi Germany wanted to refute any Polish roots - it was "unpopular" at that time.

======================================

A funny story...

 

Typical liberal elitist.

Shakespeare is considered the best British writer period. Tolkien is considered the best british writer of the 20th century. Tolkien is exceptional, Shakespeare is exceptional-of-the-exceptional.

Rowling used to be a billionaire (no longer thanks to both her charity works as well as simply taxes). But to be a billionaire is such a relatively short period of time based off writing alone is well... nothing short of spectacular. In terms of commercial success, what the Beatles were to music she is to writing.

Fantasy in itself is pretty influential (now I'm talking about Tolkien). I mean you have Charles Dickens, Oliver Charles, etc.

The British have dominated both literature and music pretty well, more than any other country on a per-capita basis by a longshot as far as I can see.

 

I'm none of those three things.

According to whom?

 

The same people who thought Shakespeare ever produced something as quality as The Canterbury Tales, presumably

 

Okay, well, first, Shakespeare is commonly regarded as the greatest English writer, rather than British. May seem a small, even petty distinction from the other side of the Atlantic, but if you're appealing to popular sentiment, it's best to get the details writers right. [edit: ha, seriously? what?] (The Scottish writer with the greater popular regard is Robert Burns; I'm not sure if any such consensus exists for Welsh and Irish writers.)

Second, I don't think I've ever actually heard Tolkien described as the best British and/or English writer of the 20th century. It's by no means self-evident that Shakespeare is the greatest English-language writer, either, but I'll give you that "Shakespeare #1" is a common enough opinion. But Tolkien? I've never heard of that. I'm not even sure he'd be regarded as the best British fantasy author, given that he's going up against Mervyn Peake and C.S. Lewis.

Fine, sure, whatever. But that doesn't tell you about her actual literary influence, which is what I'm getting at. There's no direct line from "this sells" to "this author has significant literary influence". Commercial influence, sure, but that really isn't the same thing at all. And it's literary influence, influencing the way people write (and I mean at a really substantial level, not just in deciding "YA fantasy seems to sell"), that you're arguing for.

Tolkien is influential within the fantasy genre, sure, that much is undeniable, but I don't get the impression that his influence extends far beyond it. I'm not even sure how it would, because that influence is mostly quite fantasy specific: world-building, thematics, tropes, etc., rather than literary style. Most fantasy authors don't write anything like Tolkien.

I'm not sure what Charles Dickens has to do with anything, and there's no author by the name of "Oliver Charles".

The British have a fine literary tradition, but even if you insist that it is the world's greatest, it's not really clear how that translates into "dominance". Most "great" authors are not British, most "great" books are not British, or even in the English language. It's not at all clear to me how you'd get that impression.

(Music is just a big "nope". Britain is a musical third-rater before 1960, and after that only really steps out of the American shadow in a few genre-specific instances. Even the Great Dead White Rock Musicians to whom I assume you refer were all distinguished by how hard they were trying to sound like Americans.)

 

I think it is a freudian slip, he thinking about Oliver Twist and Charles Dickens so he mention Oliver Charles. But I don't know why he mention it as a second author.

 

Bbbut they had Handel!

 

Yeats is usually given that honor. Though I had one literature professor who was convinced it was Synge.

Chesterton too. So Tolkien is in tough competition to even take home "Best English Catholic Fantasy Author of the 20th Century."

And that's not even picking at the edges of "well, is that Fantasy?" with authors like Rohmer, Caroll, Tennyson, Coleridge and well...Yeats.

 

pfft liberal elitists

 

I would compare all technology trees from all Civilization games, and check which civilizations had which technologies in real history.

 

I'm not even sure how you'd go about "checking" that in anything more than an entirely superficial way. I mean, in Civ 2, Polytheism let you build war elephants; it's not what you'd call a robust model of historical development.

 

Nah, that sounds perfectly correct and uncontroversial. The moment people started 'shipping more than one god, they rode around on elephants killin' other people.