The Cradles of Civilization in Civ V

[CivOasis]

Complete mumbo jumbo.

As to the question about Sumer vs. Jericho, I don't know, I'd wondered that myself. Maybe because Sumer had writing first?

 

[General Pilates]

Complete mumbo jumbo.

As to the question about Sumer vs. Jericho, I don't know, I'd wondered that myself. Maybe because Sumer had writing first?

The line between civilization and city states/'cultures' seems to me to be like the trouble of finding an educated man. Everyone knows an educated man when they see one, but no one can decide what exactly defines an 'educated man'. It's not just a university degree; it's something deeper. the same goes for civilization. While Jericho was impressive, I would not call that single city 'civilization'.

 

[aelf]

Everyone knows an educated man when they see one

Everyone?

 

[General Pilates]

Everyone?

Hyperbole ( /haɪˈpɜrbəliː/ hy-pur-bə-lee;[1] Greek: ὑπερβολή, 'exaggeration') is the use of exaggeration as a rhetorical device or figure of speech. It may be used to evoke strong feelings or to create a strong impression, but is not meant to be taken literally.

 

[aelf]

So what's the meaning of "Everyone knows an educated man when they see one", then, if "Everyone" does not literally mean everyone? Nearly everyone? I'd also question if it's the case that nearly everyone knows an educated man when they see one.

Plainly speaking, there just isn't actually any sort of practical consensus on who can be considered 'educated people', beyond its obvious use as an appellation for people who have pretty high educational qualifications.

 

[CivOasis]

So what's the meaning of "Everyone knows an educated man when they see one" then, if "Everyone" does not mean everyone? Nearly everyone? I'd also question if it's the case that nearly everyone knows an educated man when they see one.

Plainly speaking, there just isn't actually any sort of practical consensus on what an educated man is beyond the obvious meaning of a man who has pretty high educational qualifications.

Don't go there. His point was clear, please don't mess with the semantics and grammar of it.

 

[aelf]

Don't go there. His point was clear, please don't mess with the semantics and grammar of it.

Grammar? When did that come into the picture?

The thing about semantics is you need to pay attention to it to be clear. As it stands, the analogy doesn't seem to illustrate his point well, so his point isn't clear.

 

[CivOasis]

Grammar was just to avoid another spin-off.
And, if it's not clear, he's saying that there are generally accepted borders, but they are often difficult to define.

 

[General Pilates]

Grammar? When did that come into the picture?

The thing about semantics is you need to pay attention to it to be clear. As it stands, the analogy doesn't seem to illustrate his point well, so his point isn't clear.

Clearly the point of 'once in a blue moon' is not clear, since there is no such thing as a blue moon?

 

[aelf]

The problem is how you can claim that there are indeterminate boundaries and simultaneously avoid being potentially all-inclusive or at least much more inclusive than is implied by the notion of 'generally accepted boundaries'.

I won't make claims about the city/civilisation distinction, but a person might seem educated to some but not to others. Of course, at the extreme ends of the spectrum, there are persons that would generally be considered educated or uneducated. But it does not mean that you can therefore formulate a rule that says "Everyone knows an educated man when they see one"; it's simply untrue given that the verdicts on the cases that fall in the middle of the spectrum are non-universal, since the boundary is indeterminate.

Clearly the point of 'once in a blue moon' is not clear, since there is no such thing as a blue moon?

whut

 

[CivOasis]

The problem is how you can claim that there are indeterminate boundaries and simultaneously avoid being potentially all-inclusive or at least much more inclusive than is implied by the notion of 'generally accepted boundaries'.

I won't make claims about the city/civilisation distinction, but a person might seem educated to some but not to others. Of course, at the extreme ends of the spectrum, there are persons that would generally be considered educated or uneducated. But it does not mean that you can therefore formulate a rule that says "Everyone knows an educated man when they see one"; it's simply untrue given that the verdicts on the cases that fall in the middle of the spectrum are non-universal, since the boundary is indeterminate.

Which is why we can all agree to disagree, and get back to the actual questions posed.

 

[North King]

Clearly the point of 'once in a blue moon' is not clear, since there is no such thing as a blue moon?

Actually a blue moon is an astronomical phenomenon.

That aside, I agree that it's a stupid discussion.

 

[Theige]

I'm pretty sure the Irish still don't have civilisation.

Dude... the Irish saved civilization

 

[Lord Baal]

Complete mumbo jumbo.

As to the question about Sumer vs. Jericho, I don't know, I'd wondered that myself. Maybe because Sumer had writing first?

Sumerians mastered agriculture to a degree that wasn't really seen before. That's what usually gives them the nod. That, and the fact that we actually know something about Sumeria, and next-to-nothing about Jericho.

Dude... the Irish saved civilization

By giving us civilised folk something to unite against, of course.

 

[ParkCungHee]

According to the dates on that map Siberia is the original cradle of civilisation.

While it's not the cradle of all civilizations, for Korea yes, the origin of civilization lies in Siberia, and the Chinese didn't start in on the act until around 400 b.c.

As for the idea that Civilization developed and spread from the Middle East to Europe, that is so old and thoroughly debunked that...seriously why are we even having this discussion?

 

[sophie]

While it's not the cradle of all civilizations, for Korea yes, the origin of civilization lies in Siberia, and the Chinese didn't start in on the act until around 400 b.c.

As for the idea that Civilization developed and spread from the Middle East to Europe, that is so old and thoroughly debunked that...seriously why are we even having this discussion?

Because this is the WH subforum and inane discussions and topics are cyclical.

 

[aelf]

Which is why we can all agree to disagree, and get back to the actual questions posed.

Uh, okay. I guess that's all I can expect.

Point is I don't know if there can be a common conception of an educated man without a common definition. I'm not an archaeologist or anthropologist or whatever, but not knowing any compelling reason to believe otherwise, I'd say it's probably the same with the notion of civilisation.

Now you can go back to discussing cradles of civilisation using the laziest analogies and terms.

 

[Verbose]

Uh, okay. I guess that's all I can expect.

Point is I don't know if there can be a common conception of an educated man without a common definition. I'm not an archaeologist or anthropologist or whatever, but not knowing any compelling reason to believe otherwise, I'd say it's probably the same with the notion of civilisation.

Now you can go back to discussing cradles of civilisation using the laziest analogies and terms.

To me it seems a problem of how human language works, and the kind of qualitative assessments we keep making all the time.

What you seem to be calling for is a working analytical definition. Well, such can be made, but especially in matters of history they usually turn out unsatisfactory. We make a definition, fine, along the lines of "by educated man/civilization I mean NN, because of NN".

Next thing happens someone pulls out an interesting society/person/phenomenon which clearly doesn't have all the features required by the analytical definition, yet still requires understanding and explanation. All the analytical definition then provides is fairly boring ruling of: "No, it does not comply with the criteria and so is not a civilization/educated man". Which is next to useless if you want to actually understand this society/person.

I've seen one of the most sterile academic debates ever unfold over an abstruse argument made by one very influential older historian arguing that according to his definition of "Enlightenment" Sweden never had one. (He reserved it exclusively for France and Scotland. Somehow his mates in France were flattered by the argument and even translated his train-wreck argument.)

But then there was a new generation of young Turk historians going:
"Fine! By your definition Sweden never had an Enlightenment, and we don't give a toss! We still want to understand what all these publishers, writers, parish priests, men of science and what not in the 18th c. were actually doing, and how they figured their place in the grand scheme of things, and who DID in fact refer themselves to part of an "Enlightenment" in Sweden."

Analytical definitions in history might on occasion tidy up discussions some, but then they tend to have to be highly provisional, or they have the power to send everyone cereening down some damn sterile and uninteresting tracks. Especially when academic prestige enters into it.

One of my personal peeves with them is when an historian postulates and analytical definition (eg. from personal experience: "By 'racism' I mean") and then doesn't even bother to actually USE the damn thing, simply assuming individuals and situations conformed to the definition they initially postulated, as if the definition itself could remove the onus of doing actual research and intepretation. I've now seen it often enough to actively warn students about analytical definitions in history. They are NOT the beef of writing history. Occasionally they can be a crutch, but if you can't actually toss it away in the end, you're doing it wrong, and it's holding you back.

Pet peeve of mine, this...

 

[Plotinus]

Just as an addendum to that, I think it's been fairly well established for a while now that words don't have to have agreed definitions in order to have useful meanings. The famous example is "game" - there is no known definition that perfectly captures all the things, and only those things, that we actually refer to as "games". Nevertheless, most of us still know a game when we encounter one and we know what it means to call something a "game". The same could be said of "religion". The notion that you can't talk meaningfully about something without having a definition of it is the assumption that Socrates invariably makes in all of Plato's dialogues, and while that certainly leads to a lot of interesting arguments and some decidedly baroque metaphysics, it's fairly obviously a mistake.

 

[CivOasis]

While it's not the cradle of all civilizations, for Korea yes, the origin of civilization lies in Siberia, and the Chinese didn't start in on the act until around 400 b.c.

As for the idea that Civilization developed and spread from the Middle East to Europe, that is so old and thoroughly debunked that...seriously why are we even having this discussion?

Because, quite the opposite, that is still the belief of mainstream archaeology and history.

And I know from my history classes that:
A) China is older than that.
B) There was no major civilization in ancient Siberia, though many nomadic cultures existed.