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

[Masada]

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.

 

[H4run]

I'd date the beginnings of science considerably closer to the modern period than you guys are. People have obviously made scientific contributions but I'd consider those largely to be independent of science itself. Simple observations while useful aren't usually scientific although they might be useful as scientific data. I have zero idea about philosophy, although I'd guess it's probably inseparable form religious thought. Plotinus might be able to enlighten us.

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.

 

[Masada]

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.

 

[H4run]

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

 

[Domen]

Greece golden age (when Philosophy and Science were born) lasted for less than 200 years

I'd date the beginnings of science considerably closer to the modern period than you guys are.

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

The real beginnings of science:

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

 

[Domen]

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 :

 

[Domen]

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


Link to video.

 

[Domen]

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...

 

[caketastydelish]

I dunno about Tolkien being a detriment to the fantasy genre but LOTR was awfully written.

Typical liberal elitist.

Shakespeare is a much better writer than Tolkien, and I think Tolkien would probably be the first person to tell you as much.

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.

I'm not sure if Tolkien actually has much influence outside of fantasy, to be honest, and given that Rowling's audience is primarily young adult, I don't know if she can be said to have had much influence yet.

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.

 

[Masada]

Typical liberal elitist.

I'm none of those three things.

Tolkien is considered the best british writer of the 20th century.

According to whom?

 

[Arachnofiend]

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

 

[Traitorfish]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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 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.

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.)

 

[H4run]

and there's no author by the name of "Oliver Charles".

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.

 

[sophie]

(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.)

Bbbut they had Handel!

 

[ParkCungHee]

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 (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.)

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

'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.

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.

 

[Masada]

pfft liberal elitists

 

[Plotinus]

We use the term Industrial Revolution, so we tend to link Great Britain's accomplishments with more than just Watt's steam engine. You'll also note that most people think "satanic mills", "child labor" and "weird Victorian morals" before they focus on "steam". So to wit, our views of even that single period are rather more complicated than what you seem to be suggesting. I'd suggest science is much the same. Most people when asked about a great scientist are going to throw out say Einstein and not any sort of Greek - ancient or otherwise. Philosophy might be a bit harder... if only because most people can't say much if anything about it. (I include myself here: I can say rather a lot of about some philosophers and I can sketch out some philosophical theories insofar as they related to my areas of study but I have limited to no insight on the subject matter itself. Most people would be, I imagine, considerably worse off than me).


I'd date the beginnings of science considerably closer to the modern period than you guys are. People have obviously made scientific contributions but I'd consider those largely to be independent of science itself. Simple observations while useful aren't usually scientific although they might be useful as scientific data. I have zero idea about philosophy, although I'd guess it's probably inseparable form religious thought. Plotinus might be able to enlighten us.

It really depends on what you mean by "science". I don't see any good reason to deny that Aristotle, for example, was doing science when he made his observations of marine wildlife or dissected chicken embryos day after day to observe their development. He didn't measure things, and he didn't have a notion of performing experiments to test hypotheses, so in those senses he was not doing modern science. But given that, as far as we know, no-one had ever done anything like this before, it seems rather churlish to me to deny that this was science.

With philosophy it's even harder because people can't agree on what counts as philosophy. I would think that philosophy as we know it did pretty much begin with the Greeks (whether it really began with Thales, as tradition holds, is another matter). It's important to remember that the classical Greeks, like modern westerners, believed that the mystic orient was the source of all really important profound knowledge, so they tended to claim that famous philosophers and sages had learned it all by travelling there (or, failing that, to Egypt). These claims tend to be fictitious.

Merely noting the quite mainstream (and rightly so, in my view) opinion that the Greek antiquity (classical and hellenistic mostly) pretty much shaped the (non-far east Asian) world for most of history. I don't doubt the Chinese civilization also had very high levels of scientific and philosophic or artistic breakthroughs and it is worth mentioning that Chinese culture regards the Greek culture of the golden era as "the other Great civlization" (as in the other, apart from the Chinese one).

I disagree, as I've often said here. Greek culture was an important influence on the later development of European culture, but it was only one of the three major influences, the other two being the Middle Eastern culture of the Bible and the northern European Germanic and Scandinavian cultures. Note, for example, that we are conversing in a Germanic language right now, and most of our moral values owe more to the Jewish and Christian heritage than they do to classical Greece and Rome. Even in today's secular world I think that more people would instinctively agree with the ethics of the Gospels than they would with those of Aristotle.

Arguably, the idea of classical Greece has played just as much of a part in shaping European values as the actuality. There has always been this notion that there was once a greater civilisation and we are just living in its ruins, whether it be the ruined stone cities that the Anglo-Saxons attributed to giants or the Renaissance myth that all the important ideas had already been thought of by the Greeks and the medievals were just a bunch of place-holders. That notion has perhaps been more important than any actual influence of actual Greek ideas on later ages. The latter is still important, of course, just not that important.

I don't really see any literary value in Tolkien. Granted, i only have read the Hobbit...

Come on, that's hardly fair - judging him by his children's book and not by his more important works.

If you want to give him another chance I'd recommend the recently published Children of Hurin. I think you'd appreciate its tone.

 

[Domen]

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

 

[Traitorfish]

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.

 

[Antilogic]

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.