Small Observations General Thread (things not worth separate threads)

[Boris Gudenuf]

Without a doubt. As a humanities major, I tend to think of engineers as even more my antithesis than scientists.

Degree in History and advanced degree in Classics, which is about as Humanities as you can get, but also a father who was an engineer, so have a bit more nuanced view. There is an artistry in engineering, in making something not only work, but work elegantly and with precision and economy.

It is intriguing to me that an engineer who doesn't make an effort to understand art and literature is looked down upon as nekulurny or, to quote someone on these Threads, 'roman', but the Humanities professor who is proud of their inability to understand engineering or physical sciences, the basics and basis of our modern world, is not looked down upon as utterly incapable of understanding the world around him.

And before we dismiss the Romans as completely without artistic merit, they excavated a 'pigment shop' in Rome a while ago, which sold a multitude of colorful compounds suitable for painting exterior walls and statues and interior frescos and walls. That, of course, says nothing about how well they painted anything, but they did make sure the prerequisite materials were available for those that knew how to use them.

 

[Zaarin]

Degree in History and advanced degree in Classics

I went the other way around: undergrad in literature and master's in history--considered a doctorate in literature before deciding it was a time investment I couldn't afford.

It is intriguing to me that an engineer who doesn't make an effort to understand art and literature is looked down upon as nekulurny or, to quote someone on these Threads, 'roman', but the Humanities professor who is proud of their inability to understand engineering or physical sciences, the basics and basis of our modern world, is not looked down upon as utterly incapable of understanding the world around him.

I mostly jest. While I'm not particularly interested in physics, I do have a keen interest in astronomy (and astrophysics) that I've nurtured since childhood. I'm just not particularly interested in the mathematical part of it--once formulae start appearing, my brain checks out.

And before we dismiss the Romans as completely without artistic merit, they excavated a 'pigment shop' in Rome a while ago, which sold a multitude of colorful compounds suitable for painting exterior walls and statues and interior frescos and walls. That, of course, says nothing about how well they painted anything, but they did make sure the prerequisite materials were available for those that knew how to use them.

I'm sorry, I refuse to give up my prejudice against the Romans as uncultured swine whose art was imitative and derivative at best.

 

[The Fanatical]

Actually, even their contemporary Greeks regarded the Spartans as Uncultured. They didn't export any statuary, pottery, or leave behind any monumental buildings or temples. They were regarded as very good Poets, but being very conservative, didn't write much of it down, so our examples of 'laconic' (Spartan-style) poetry are mostly from non-Spartan poets who adopted the style, like Simonides, who produced the absolute masterpiece of laconic poetry in the inscription on the stele erected at Thermopolye.

Haven't archaeologists found any Laconic statue or pottery outside of Laconia? Like the kylix from Cerveteri? This would prove they traded with other cities. Sparta itself might have avoided trade for its reasons, but the cities around Sparta where Perioecoi lived might have traded.

 

[AriochIV]

Every civ has two attributes and on reddit their meaning was clarified:
View attachment 704268
(Found it from here)

I'm guessing that they are referring to points you get from the narrative events/quests, and that these points are always in those two categories.

 

[Zaarin]

This always bothers me too. It's somehow still cool to hate maths. Say you've never read a work of Shakespeare, and people will think you're uncouth. But act surprised when someone doesn't know the laws of thermodynamics in polite conversation and people will think you're the one lacking culture (I mean, not the people I hang around with, but I'm a weirdo who surrounds himself with weirdos....)

I think this is partly because the humanities overlap strongly with art, and art is (partially) entertainment. So people are more likely to be familiar with those subjects simply by seeking entertainment. Also it's possible to be a keen amateur in a section parts of Humanities as a hobby, not at the level of publishing peer reviewed journals or making breakthroughs, but at least being able to read those papers. That's simply not true in in Physical Sciences or Engineering generally: good luck trying to read anything in Physical Review Letters without at least a masters on a closely related subject. Even a superficial understanding of, say, Algebraic Topology requires a degree in maths and having taken the right options. Compare that to history, anyone who can read can gain a superficial understanding of any topic by reading a wikipedia article.

All valid reasons why STEM knowledge is less widespread than humanities knowledge, but it is a shame that people still revel in their own ignorance.

I have a very different perspective and experience. I think our society considerably overvalues STEM at the expense of the humanities (and relatedly overvalues rationalism at the expense of aesthetics and philosophy).

 

[Gori the Grey]

I mean, in literature at least, you can credit the Romans with Plautus, Ovid, Catullus and Horace at the bare minimum as authors who added a range of expression beyond anything in their Greek models. And the Aeneid really is a different kind of poem than its Homeric sources in a way that has been profoundly influential to later European authors.

We can give the Romans credit for a modicum of artistic sensibility. (Plus the root of the word modicum.)

(Humanist who couldn't name any of Kepler's Laws speaking )

 

[Josephias]

It is intriguing to me that an engineer who doesn't make an effort to understand art and literature is looked down upon as nekulurny or, to quote someone on these Threads, 'roman',

Seeing the interesting debate it has spurred, I have to confess I am myself an engineer, and therefore very much a fan of the Romans.

But I have to recognize great part of the engineering "art" is finding solutions to problems, normally "stealing" (we prefer "putting to good use", thanks ) developments made by scientists and artists. Engineering is mostly creative in the use, not in the base.

This leads (if everything goes well, and as you point out) to products that combine practicity & beauty, even if they are not always are the most original... well, just like most of what the Romans built.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I have a very different perspective and experience. I think our society considerably overvalues STEM at the expense of the humanities (and relatedly overvalues rationalism at the expense of aesthetics and philosophy).

- And here you put your finger on an interesting part of the problem. Our society purports to value STEM at the expense of humanities, frequently exampled as what we will pay someone with STEM knowledge versus someone with Humanities expertise. Yet both groups are quite overshadowed by those with knowledge of our financial system who work manipulating money and stocks: the top earning graduates are from the business schools, not as a group from either engineering or humanities cirriculums.

Anecdotal evidence: Years ago I was visiting a pair of friends. Both had PhDs, one in Library Science (who could, therefore, find any information anywhere faster than politicians can make it up) and one in English Education (she specialized in teaching people who had to teach the language to Special Needs students or teach the people teaching those students). We realized in the conversation that their combined annual take-home pay working 3 jobs (he was both part of the State Library System and also a contractor teaching Law Clerks how to use the new computerized Law Libraries, she taught at a prestigious Private College) was only slightly more than my single take-home salary as a Sergant First Class in the US Army - a job which, I can assure you, required no higher formal education beyond High School.

Essentially, 16 years of higher education in very specialized Humanities fields was worthless to the society as measured in what society would pay for that knowledge.

On the other hand, my job did require considerable mathematical skill, knowledge of ballistics, electronic communications, computers, nuclear weapons' characteristics, and the technical and leadership skills to train and manage a team of people to complete very exacting tasks under exceptional conditions. At the time, there were only about 40 people in the world with those capabilities doing that particular job.

Perhaps rarity was a factor, but that did not change my basic military pay, which was based entirely on my rank, which I could actually have achieved as fast doing completely different jobs.

As for rationality versus philosophy and/or aesthetics, I would argue that rationality is required to solve problems. Philosophy is required to know which problems need solving. No human is complete without both.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Hear this Civ designers?

You need to concoct a culture-science VC!

 

[Zaarin]

As for rationality versus philosophy and/or aesthetics, I would argue that rationality is required to solve problems. Philosophy is required to know which problems need solving. No human is complete without both.

Indeed. I was speaking of imbalance of values, not that rationalism should be entirely eschewed--we live in an Aristotelean age and could use a little more Plato (without altogether silencing Aristotle).

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Hear this Civ designers?

You need to concoct a culture-science VC!

Let's see, possible candidates for a Culture-Science combination:

Antiquity Babylon
Antiquity Han
Exploration Song
Modern Japan?

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Indeed. I was speaking of imbalance of values, not that rationalism should be entirely eschewed--we live in an Aristotelean age and could use a little more Plato (without altogether silencing Aristotle).

From memories of my Classicist days, I would rather say we need more Socrates: the practical Philosopher who insisted on using 'philosophy' to find answers to the Basic Questions. If I ever had to come up with a single phrase to address what is required to live a good life, it would be his:

"An unexamined Life is not worth living."

 

[Gori the Grey]

I'm not so sure about that.

 

[Zaarin]

Or perhaps we need more people who know the difference between Schrödinger and Heisenberg than between Plato and Aristotle.

No, that's definitely the direct opposite of the case. I'm with Dostoevsky. Beauty, not science, will save the world.

 

[Zaarin]

But I'm being a bad mod; we should get back to discussing Small Observations about Civ7. ETA: And I have more than a basic knowledge of science so you can spare me your condescension.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Let's see, possible candidates for a Culture-Science combination:

Antiquity Babylon
Antiquity Han
Exploration Song
Modern Japan?

England had Bacon, Royal Society, Newton and Shakespeare, Milton within what is the game's Exploration Age.

 

[AriochIV]

Or perhaps we need more people who know the difference between Schrödinger and Heisenberg than between Plato and Aristotle.

I'd like for people to understand more about science, but I'm not sure that level of granularity is especially helpful for the average person.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Or perhaps we need more people who know the difference between Schrödinger and Heisenberg than between Plato and Aristotle.

Last OT Post:

I think it more important that we have people who know the Meaning behind the discoveries of Schrödinger and Heisenberg and the Importance of Plato and Aristotle.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

For a Culture + Scientific civ, modern-era France could work if focussed on post French Revolution all the way to belle époque. French culture doesn't really need an introduction, and on the science side it has names like Descartes, Fermat, Lagrange, Galois, Lavoisier, Lamarck, Laplace, Pasteur, Fourier, Foucault, Curie, and many more. Of course Civ has a tendency to hyper focus French civs on the couple of decades that involve Napoleon....

I was considering Modern France for some of those same names, but a lot depends on how they plan to measure Culture and Science in the Modern Era. By sheer Influence, America would get the nod for its scientific Application and Mass ('Pop') Culture. France and Modern England/Britain, on the other hand, deserve mention for the sheer number of important basic Science discoveries and their Artistic Output in several categories of artistic endeavor: literature, film, theatre, decorative arts, etc.

 

[Giskler]

This screenshot is labeled treasure ship and from the looks of it it appears to be just that. I wonder if they are implementing a variation of the treasure hunts from Colonization?