192 replies to this topic

[mohistManiac]

Allow me to put forward the argument that the Romans were really ahead of the Han because they were laying the foundations of an intellectualism which the Chinese lacked. That intellectualism was built on causality. It sees to me that Chinese thinking did a poor job of causality, whereas the Romans inherited it from the Greeks, and continually refined it. In fact, the Romans were obsessed about cause and effect, not just in science, but in the law and in philosophy also. The Chinese, but contrast merely had Confucianist precedent, or the mystical Dao.

You're saying the unique intellectualism were a result of Greek input but then fail to say what made it Roman in the end. Then you say the Han dynasty people didn't have this input but were nonetheless equipped with causality although a poor one. Can you explain what made one school of causality better than the next and why the Romans should be credited? Also why would causality in law and philosophy matter to technology? Thanks.

Edited by mohistManiac, 18 April 2011 - 03:07 PM.

[mariusj]

Actually, I think I might try to address an aspect of this topic which has so far been overlooked.

There is no doubt that, in their own ways, Rome and the Han were both extremely advanced. However, despite the calamity which befell the Western Empire in the 5th century, and the Chinese flourishing under the Tang, Chinese science withered on the vine. Western scientific thought continued to advance.

Allow me to put forward the argument that the Romans were really ahead of the Han because they were laying the foundations of an intellectualism which the Chinese lacked. That intellectualism was built on causality. It sees to me that Chinese thinking did a poor job of causality, whereas the Romans inherited it from the Greeks, and continually refined it. In fact, the Romans were obsessed about cause and effect, not just in science, but in the law and in philosophy also. The Chinese, but contrast merely had Confucianist precedent, or the mystical Dao.

And lest anyone says the West had a free ride on the backs of the Muslims, the Muslim scientific revolution of the 11th and 12 centuries was built on their discovery of Greek science. Moreover, there is a pile of evidence that the West had many of these texts from their own sources not from the Muslims in Spain. Don't forget, either, that just after this Muslim scientific revolution, their scientific progress withered as well.

So, perhaps the real technological advantage the Romans had was an intellectual one, not a technical one.

Now, I know there will be some people who will violently react to this thesis, but I put it up for discussion, and invite detached argument for and against.

While the scientific revolution could be attributed in part to the Renaissance which should be attributed to the rediscovery of Roman and Greek world, it is by far that ROMAN intellectualism led to the scientific revolution. This argument, while giving too much credit to the Romans and Greeks, give too little credit to the pioneer of the scientific revolution. If one can attribute that 'causality' is the foundation of science, and that Roman causality is what led to the scientific revolution, one must provide evidence that suggests how and WHICH philosophy school of the Roman civilization provided such link. Otherwise, the 'Ge-Wu' school has as MUCH if not more association to the classical Confucianism than the natural philosophy of Renaissance to the classics Rome, if we are to distinguish different periods of Rome.

Especially given the Empire was largely continued through the eastern Roman world, one can always ask, if it was Roman causality that led to its 'advancement' as you claim, then why is it that the Easter Empire was unable to produce or even influence any scientific advancement but has to wait for others to rediscover its ruins? There are causality school in almost every civilization, to say that China does not have causality is simply false and unfounded. The Roman philosophy has as many branches as Han China, if not LESS, and YOUR lack of understanding on 'precedents of Confucianism' is strangely unfounded. Precedents suggests that IF something has been done then it would be fine to do it again, while Confucian classics clearly STATES that THINGS IN THE PAST WERE WRONG before. The very IDEA of chronicles is to show that PRECEDENTS can and will be wrong. Therefore to associate that somehow, Confucianism is ALL about precedents is as bewildering as claiming Romans is all about causality.

Not to forget, that Western science also withered during a very long period of time which we informally called the Dark Age; if the causality of Romans were the direct influence which led to scientific discoveries, then it would make NO logical sense that those that were closer to them, or that themselves were unable to take ANY advantage of it then compare to those who 'rediscover' their ruins. Whatever scientific advantage the west has, it was at the shoulder and CURIOSITY of the Renaissance giants, and not at the shoulder of the Romans.

And I actually liked Romans a lot more than I like Han.

[mohistManiac]

While the scientific revolution could be attributed in part to the Renaissance which should be attributed to the rediscovery of Roman and Greek world, it is by far that ROMAN intellectualism led to the scientific revolution. This argument, while giving too much credit to the Romans and Greeks, give too little credit to the pioneer of the scientific revolution. If one can attribute that 'causality' is the foundation of science, and that Roman causality is what led to the scientific revolution, one must provide evidence that suggests how and WHICH philosophy school of the Roman civilization provided such link. Otherwise, the 'Ge-Wu' school has as MUCH if not more association to the classical Confucianism than the natural philosophy of Renaissance to the classics Rome, if we are to distinguish different periods of Rome.

Especially given the Empire was largely continued through the eastern Roman world, one can always ask, if it was Roman causality that led to its 'advancement' as you claim, then why is it that the Easter Empire was unable to produce or even influence any scientific advancement but has to wait for others to rediscover its ruins? There are causality school in almost every civilization, to say that China does not have causality is simply false and unfounded. The Roman philosophy has as many branches as Han China, if not LESS, and YOUR lack of understanding on 'precedents of Confucianism' is strangely unfounded. Precedents suggests that IF something has been done then it would be fine to do it again, while Confucian classics clearly STATES that THINGS IN THE PAST WERE WRONG before. The very IDEA of chronicles is to show that PRECEDENTS can and will be wrong. Therefore to associate that somehow, Confucianism is ALL about precedents is as bewildering as claiming Romans is all about causality.

Not to forget, that Western science also withered during a very long period of time which we informally called the Dark Age; if the causality of Romans were the direct influence which led to scientific discoveries, then it would make NO logical sense that those that were closer to them, or that themselves were unable to take ANY advantage of it then compare to those who 'rediscover' their ruins. Whatever scientific advantage the west has, it was at the shoulder and CURIOSITY of the Renaissance giants, and not at the shoulder of the Romans.

And I actually liked Romans a lot more than I like Han.

If you recognize neither Roman law nor tradition was capable in establishing the Roman ethos in and of themselves you would understand that the scientific revolution (so long as it might belong to humanity) doesn't merely exercise notions of causality or "one thing leads to another". The scientific revolution isn't necessarily any one of these things: causality, rationality, deduction, axioms, theorems, algorithms, etc but rather a new liberating medium to which all become accessed. I'm not so convinced that William might prefer to think Confucianism or Roman causality is "all about" something.

It would be more accurate to give credit in bits and pieces. Roman enterprise in philosophical causality might have contributed to writing laws leading to perhaps more applied and "lawful" understanding of science as a whole. In contrast Han dynasty enterprise in human causal relationships and rites due to Confucian predominance shows us that the intellectualism of the period was more syncretic, integrational, systematic, compositional etc leading to a more complete picture of the sciences but to many inaccuracies as well. For example just because mercury flows doesn't mean it replenishes life energy if you absorb it into your body as QSHD thought.

For the Han dynasty people a lot of things took on more mystical perceptions than were necessary. Feng shui, where a city laid out into a north-south axis was seen to be beneficial was only reflecting the design of the cosmos but without anything which showed that the cosmos commanded anything causally. In fact feng shui could have been developed into something more akin with modern city planning. If the designers knew what it was they were actually conforming to they could have applied and enforced it as they would have architectural principles of column and beam support. But many civilizations fell short in running into these kinds of problems. It would be interesting to see what the Romans were able to avoid or to improve upon where the Han dynasty people lacked or for that matter where the Greeks lacked.

Edited by mohistManiac, 18 April 2011 - 09:13 PM.

[William O'Chee]

While the scientific revolution could be attributed in part to the Renaissance which should be attributed to the rediscovery of Roman and Greek world, it is by far that ROMAN intellectualism led to the scientific revolution. This argument, while giving too much credit to the Romans and Greeks, give too little credit to the pioneer of the scientific revolution. If one can attribute that 'causality' is the foundation of science, and that Roman causality is what led to the scientific revolution, one must provide evidence that suggests how and WHICH philosophy school of the Roman civilization provided such link. Otherwise, the 'Ge-Wu' school has as MUCH if not more association to the classical Confucianism than the natural philosophy of Renaissance to the classics Rome, if we are to distinguish different periods of Rome.

Especially given the Empire was largely continued through the eastern Roman world, one can always ask, if it was Roman causality that led to its 'advancement' as you claim, then why is it that the Easter Empire was unable to produce or even influence any scientific advancement but has to wait for others to rediscover its ruins? There are causality school in almost every civilization, to say that China does not have causality is simply false and unfounded. The Roman philosophy has as many branches as Han China, if not LESS, and YOUR lack of understanding on 'precedents of Confucianism' is strangely unfounded. Precedents suggests that IF something has been done then it would be fine to do it again, while Confucian classics clearly STATES that THINGS IN THE PAST WERE WRONG before. The very IDEA of chronicles is to show that PRECEDENTS can and will be wrong. Therefore to associate that somehow, Confucianism is ALL about precedents is as bewildering as claiming Romans is all about causality.

Not to forget, that Western science also withered during a very long period of time which we informally called the Dark Age; if the causality of Romans were the direct influence which led to scientific discoveries, then it would make NO logical sense that those that were closer to them, or that themselves were unable to take ANY advantage of it then compare to those who 'rediscover' their ruins. Whatever scientific advantage the west has, it was at the shoulder and CURIOSITY of the Renaissance giants, and not at the shoulder of the Romans.

And I actually liked Romans a lot more than I like Han.

Well, that is a good argument, and I am not necessarily convinced the argument I put up is correct. I'm just testing out the theory.

Your argument requires a thorough response. At the moment, though, I am flat out in the lead up to Anzac Day here in Australia.

In short, my argument is built more around the philosophy of science than any specific scientific achievement. That's not a cop out, but I need to explain it in a bit of depth. What I will caution you about is the myth of the Dark Ages. I'll come to that later.

[mariusj]

Well, that is a good argument, and I am not necessarily convinced the argument I put up is correct. I'm just testing out the theory.

Your argument requires a thorough response. At the moment, though, I am flat out in the lead up to Anzac Day here in Australia.

In short, my argument is built more around the philosophy of science than any specific scientific achievement. That's not a cop out, but I need to explain it in a bit of depth. What I will caution you about is the myth of the Dark Ages. I'll come to that later.

HEHE

Thanks. I look forward to hear more from you

As for Dark Age, I was always under the impression of the dogmatic nature in which Catholic Europe stifles the creative process of scientific inquiry, though not necessary suffocates them. In a sense, scientific progress is not based and depend on scientific breakthrough, but the general acceptance of the idea of breakthrough. Someone can perform calculus, it meant nothing unless it spreads to a certain level. Calculus is nothing if only Newton and Leibniz knows about them; it is something when people accept them. Using the same example, you can read in Wiki that there are many 'discoveries' of calculus in other civilizations, but its meaningless as it is not a progress; surely a tree fall even if no one hears it, but the purpose of an audiences-less concert is rather meaningless and therefore should not be consider to be a progress.

That is my opinion of the Dark Age.

[mohistManiac]

As are most of your comparisons. Most Roman public services also have little influence on the majority of its population who does not reside in urban dwellings. As for fairy tales, the fact that Chinese historical records are archival makes such records generally far more credible than the real fairy tales recorded in Western accounts such as Herodotus.

I have a little difference in understanding. While a great majority of the Roman defined territories must have had only subsistence level populations it could easily be said the remainder of the populations living in Roman style cities had a superior lifestyle in terms of luxury when compared to the Han dynasty people in their cities. Although it may be a shallow judgement the Romans in cities did enjoy the benefits of having lots of water such as baths and toilets which implies that they were to a degree healthier.

As for the records of the mercury pools in Qin Shi Huang's mausoleum they were placed only for someone who has died and didn't offer living benefits whatever that may be so basically that's the difference. What may be confusing is that everyone who took part in the construction were supposed to have kept their mouth shut about the secrets one way or another but the existence of the record presents a problem.

[William O'Chee]

I have a little difference in understanding. While a great majority of the Roman defined territories must have had only subsistence level populations it could easily be said the remainder of the populations living in Roman style cities had a superior lifestyle in terms of luxury when compared to the Han dynasty people in their cities. Although it may be a shallow judgement the Romans in cities did enjoy the benefits of having lots of water such as baths and toilets which implies that they were to a degree healthier.

As for the records of the mercury pools in Qin Shi Huang's mausoleum they were placed only for someone who has died and didn't offer living benefits whatever that may be so basically that's the difference. What may be confusing is that everyone who took part in the construction were supposed to have kept their mouth shut about the secrets one way or another but the existence of the record presents a problem.

I suspect you are right. Recent excavations of villas in Britain show that they enjoyed central heating and running water. Moreover, the diffusion of pottery, amphorae, and other traded goods shows widespread commerce across the Empire. This in turn suggests that the benefits of citizenship were fairly widely spread.

Letters preserved at Vindolanda give surprising insights into life at the very edge of the Empire. Not only did the postal system work exceedingly well, built even carried items such as sandals and the like sent by relatives to soldiers stationed there. That is very impressive.

[mohistManiac]

I suspect you are right. Recent excavations of villas in Britain show that they enjoyed central heating and running water. Moreover, the diffusion of pottery, amphorae, and other traded goods shows widespread commerce across the Empire. This in turn suggests that the benefits of citizenship were fairly widely spread.

Letters preserved at Vindolanda give surprising insights into life at the very edge of the Empire. Not only did the postal system work exceedingly well, built even carried items such as sandals and the like sent by relatives to soldiers stationed there. That is very impressive.

That totally reminded me of something I was going to ask. That is how did ancient postal systems work? There must have been addresses but I don't recall anything like that.

If I may just take another quick jab at the bias you were talking about concerning Roman intellectualism my guess is that they had a practice of writing treatises. They simply had an ideal of information dissemination that made things quicker to follow. On the other hand it seemed Han dynasty people merely kept imperial records of the best and brightest things but ended up commenting on them in very syncretic and esoteric fashion. Take city planning, many a Chinese wouldn't have been made aware that their cities were grand cosmic schemes, the most arbitrary of arbitrary city planning. By contrast Vitruvius's De Architura which while I've not read would have probably made more use of analysis into the utility nature of city planning.

[mariusj]

What is the difference between pleasing the nature of man and pleasing the nature of the divine?

Its like saying, is there actually a difference between a natural gift of intelligence and a natural gift of beauty?

[mohistManiac]

That's why I say in the end it's all just cultural constructivism. Beauty is a standard which can be boundless but you can't deny the nature of a collective intellect as opposed to the intellect of a few. The differences are thus reflected by the way of differing approaches and going about using available intelligence with means to coordinate with the specified goals. Roman cities aren't necessarily "correct" because they abandon cosmological conventions used in China and elsewhere. However the way they grow outwards from a center gives them possbility to be constructed experimentally and with more involvement from the perspective of the masses. Such constructivism always allowing the chance for reinterpretations based on the perceived failures of the past for new city plans. That way their goal was indeed allowing room for modification but in practice things may have been set in stone and never really changed. On the other hand Chinese cities are always constrained to the cosmic city plan which was derived since very ancient times but whether or not they "work" according to original interpretation isn't really considered. In fact I would say that in spite of the cosmological preference simply because the structures were wooden and less permanent meant that change was bound to occur on a constant basis but with certain heavy restrictions.

I guess what I'm also trying to say is that the Romans in representing the west had developed epistemology and other such sciences and philosophy just like many other civilizations but there was a certain degree of "nervous urgency" or a kind of skepticism that things weren't "correct". And this was felt on the collective level by their groups of intellectuals and other educated people. On the other hand Han dynasty in representing the east had epistemology (I imagine) but the whole cultural package for these things can be perceived as relatively more "secure" as opposed to "insecure". So regardless of the separatist individualistic ethos environment of ancient China attributes defining challenging or oppositional mentalities concerning intellectual freedom were really sidelined. I suppose that's why the mandate of heaven concept works exceptionally well in China because it wasn't necessarily perceived that ideas were wrong but that the people being chosen by the emperor and other elites were responsible on a personal level for failures in the state.

Edited by mohistManiac, 21 April 2011 - 12:22 AM.

[mariusj]

That's why I say in the end it's all just cultural constructivism. Beauty is a standard which can be boundless but you can't deny the nature of a collective intellect as opposed to the intellect of a few.

There certainly is a difference between the nature of a collective intellect and intellect of a few, but if you are somehow suggesting that Romans are the collective intellect, then you are sadly mistaken. There is no evidence at all that suggests the forum is the collective intellect of Romans, especially in a representative republic.

The differences are thus reflected by the way of differing approaches and going about using available intelligence with means to coordinate with the specified goals.

Much like there are epic struggles between different political ideologies in China, there are even WORSE epic struggles in Rome, which makes Rome more entertaining than Han at certain periods. There is no denying the brilliance of Marius, Caesar, Anthony, and the likes, yet the Optimates would not hesitate to use riot, slander, assassination, and CIVIL WAR to fought the ideas that allow Rome to prosper, they would rather fight a civil war then to accept someone else who love Rome as much as they do, what makes you think they use available intelligence? Just look back to Roman history and you would see that there is NOTHING about Rome that speaks of a collective intellect.

However the way they grow outwards from a center gives them possbility to be constructed experimentally and with more involvement from the perspective of the masses.

And Chinese cities do not grow outwards from a center? Human anthropology is the reason of these construction, and not some collective intellect.

That way their goal was indeed allowing room for modification but in practice things may have been set in stone and never really changed. On the other hand Chinese cities are always constrained to the cosmic city plan which was derived since very ancient times but whether or not they "work" according to original interpretation isn't really considered.

Chinese cities have changed CONSTANTLY. Just because you never read about them does not mean they are never changed. For that matter, I have no idea where the diea that Chinese cities are always constrained to some cosmic city plan, which I never even heard of. I like some source.

I guess what I'm also trying to say is that the Romans in representing the west had developed epistemology and other such sciences and philosophy just like many other civilizations but there was a certain degree of "nervous urgency" or a kind of skepticism that things weren't "correct".

The Chinese, however flawed, never put a philosopher to death for poisoning the mind of their youth; now I know Romans are not Greeks, but given they are more stubborn than the Greeks, I fail to see the 'skepticism' you mentioned. Why don't you name an example.

And this was felt on the collective level by their groups of intellectuals and other educated people. On the other hand Han dynasty in representing the east had epistemology (I imagine) but the whole cultural package for these things can be perceived as relatively more "secure" as opposed to "insecure".

Why don't we compare, then, the difference between a classic Han education, and a classic Roman education?
There are in fact VERY little difference. Philosophy, history, religion, and military strategy.

So regardless of the separatist individualistic ethos environment of ancient China attributes defining challenging or oppositional mentalities concerning intellectual freedom were really sidelined.

What?

I suppose that's why the mandate of heaven concept works exceptionally well in China, because it wasn't necessarily perceived that ideas were wrong - but that the people being chosen by the emperor and other elites were responsible on a personal level for failures in the state.

I added some punctuation which made the sentence more readable, but I might of butcher your meaning, but without these I am not sure what you are saying.

If you think that the Romans rule without some kind of divine empowerment, then you should reread Roman history.

When Gaius Popillius Laenas walked up to King Antiochus IV of Syria, who just managed to conquered Egypt, and told him in plain terms that if he wishes to move any further, than the wrath of the Roman senate will be felt fully, and then drew a circle around the King. He said to him, oh great King, when you move, it better be the other way; oh by the way, cough up Egypt. Staring the King down with 12 lectors, he replied to the King's outrage question of where the hell is your army, Popillius Laenas said to him did you not see the empowerment that was given by the people and the senate of Rome to me? King Antiochus end up retreating, and gave up Egypt.

If you think Popillius Laenas does not believe some divine guidance and walked up to an army with 12 lectors behind his back, then he got a pair of giant iron balls.

Manifest Destiny is much the same as Mandate of Heaven, same as Divine Rights.

[William O'Chee]

I can see it has taken me too long to put my thoughts above into a post. I apologise. It is still the lead up to Anzac Day, and I haven't had a chance to put together my sources and citations. If people grant me a little indulgence for that, then here we go.

Technology is the practical application of scientific knowledge.

I am sure someone will want to dispute this, but the technology comes from the Greek tekhnologia, the systemic treatment of knowledge. That is literally what it means.

So, if technology is the practical application of scientific knowledge, is scientific knowledge something that happens on its own, or does it depend on some underlying intellectual structure?

I believe that a solid argument can be made for the following:

• The ancient Greeks developed the basis of scientific method
  
• Scientific method involves observation for the purpose of discerning the cause of an observed phenomenon
  
• This concept of causality underpinned Roman thinking
  
• This also led to an understanding of the importance of the taxonomy of knowledge, which was lacking in the East
  
• The principles of causality and taxonomy were the foundations of ongoing scientific development

I know I really ought to go through an elaborate proof of each of the above points, but many of them are generally accepted. For example, there is no argument that Aristotle in his Physics developed the idea that observation led to an understanding of underlying causes. It doesn't really matter that some of his suppositions as to cause were wrong, because the process of scientific observation which he championed eventually led to better understandings.

This latter statement is very important. The Greeks, and later the Romans, embraced disputation as a means by which the truth could be reached. This process of disputation involved an ongoing process of questioning and testing scientific hypotheses. Aristotle didn't have to be right, provided his methods were right. That's what scientific advancement is all about.

As for the Romans, they readily embraced and developed this in a wide range of subjects. The one with which I am most familiar is Roman law. The Roman legal process used a formula which applied a rigorous logical process to resolving legal disputes. This can be seen int he following formula:

Let Titius be judge. If it results that the plaintiff had given the thing under discussion to the defendant as guarantee for an owed sum, and this sum has been paid or the debt otherwise satisfied, or it depended on the defendant that it was not, and the thing was not returned to the plaintiff, condemn the defendant to pay as much as the matter will represent; otherwise, absolve him.

The formula sets out a logical process of enquiry which the judge had to follow. This was just the way Romans thought. Although argument by example is usually a poor way to develop a case, it is useful in this sense because it shows the importance of causality in Roman thought.

The other issue here is taxonomy. The Romans were endlessly seeking to classify things, to divide them into categories by distinguishing between fundamental characteristics. This is also important. It is intrinsic to understanding, and to scientific theory. Again, let me use an example from Roman law, but this time one with scientific significance.

It was an important element of property law to know what property might be subject to private ownership, and how it came into ownership (what Romans called modes of acquisition). An animal, for example, is considered to be the property of a person if it is within his control. Thus domesticated animals are the property of the person who controls them, or on whose property they may be contained. What then of wild animals that may be on someone's property? The Roman answer was to classify wild animals into two categories, those that roamed, and those that had an animus revertendi, i.e. it was in their nature to return to particular place, such as bees, or nesting birds. The latter were the property of the owner of the land to which they returned, The former were the property of anyone who could take control of them, even on another's land.

This whole process of enquiry was extraordinarily logical, and embraced both scientific method and taxonomy to arrive at the final result.

But still some people will argue that there was a Dark Age in Europe and that Roman technology had no bearing on later ages. The response to that is twofold. First, even if the Dark Ages did lead to a scientific hiatus, the basis of scientific knowledge was not lost, and when ultimately led to the furtherance of science in the West, which was absent in the East. Thus even if we accept there was a Dark Age, once that scientific knowledge was recovered, it still was the foundation for later discoveries. The argument is not that the West had better technology than the East, but that it had better scientific knowledge.

Secondly, there is a strong argument that the Dark Ages, if they did exist, are very much overstated. Remember, the Eastern Roman Empire continued after the fall of Rome. This wasn't Greece, but the Eastern Roman Empire, and they retained the scientific legacy of the earlier Roman Empire. That is why Constantinople was such a wonder to all those who visited it. This is often overlooked in many arguments about the Dark Ages.

But were the Dark Ages as dark as everyone believes? Popularly the Dark Ages are supposed to encompass a period from the 5th century AD to sometime between the 12th and 15th centuries. Yet within this period, we now know that there were surprising examples of scientific knowledge being developed and applied. For example, Isidore of Seville, who lived from 560 AD to 4 April 636 AD wrote the first encyclopaedia during this period - massive work of 448 chapters in 20 books.

In Germany at the court of Charlemagne, Alcuin of York (c735 AD to 19 May 804 AD) was busy translating the works of the classical Greeks. And 11th century Sicily was able to translate these same texts because they were available from Byzantium itself, as well as from Byzantine controlled territory in southern Italy, such as Naples.

The precursors to all of this stem from, or were in place by the time of the early Roman Empire, but seem absent from the Han.

So, there it is. I welcome your comments.

Edited by William O'Chee, 21 April 2011 - 08:43 AM.

[mohistManiac]

There certainly is a difference between the nature of a collective intellect and intellect of a few, but if you are somehow suggesting that Romans are the collective intellect, then you are sadly mistaken. There is no evidence at all that suggests the forum is the collective intellect of Romans, especially in a representative republic.



Much like there are epic struggles between different political ideologies in China, there are even WORSE epic struggles in Rome, which makes Rome more entertaining than Han at certain periods. There is no denying the brilliance of Marius, Caesar, Anthony, and the likes, yet the Optimates would not hesitate to use riot, slander, assassination, and CIVIL WAR to fought the ideas that allow Rome to prosper, they would rather fight a civil war then to accept someone else who love Rome as much as they do, what makes you think they use available intelligence? Just look back to Roman history and you would see that there is NOTHING about Rome that speaks of a collective intellect.

The contrast was this. The Han dynasty cosmological city plan was enforced by its elite creators so nobody dared build away from designated cordoned off areas. In other words no collective intellect was consulted on the ways of going about this cosmological city plan. Why in the world did there have to be 9 gates from north to south? On the other hand there was no Roman cosmological city plan. The collective response could come about through repeated experimental building to define what looked good and what suited well for cordoning off certain areas from others.

And Chinese cities do not grow outwards from a center? Human anthropology is the reason of these construction, and not some collective intellect.


Chinese cities have changed CONSTANTLY. Just because you never read about them does not mean they are never changed. For that matter, I have no idea where the diea that Chinese cities are always constrained to some cosmic city plan, which I never even heard of. I like some source.

I have also suggested this. Their impermanence is a contingent feature due to their construction with wooden materials. Areas once occupied could have seen disuse and then reoccupied for other purposes. Wooden materials could be shifted, recycled. Faster rate of decay due to wooden construction also meant routine renovation but changes were all confined to the cosmological city plan. The diagram is missing but look here: http://en.wikipedia...._urban_planning

The Chinese, however flawed, never put a philosopher to death for poisoning the mind of their youth; now I know Romans are not Greeks, but given they are more stubborn than the Greeks, I fail to see the 'skepticism' you mentioned. Why don't you name an example.


Why don't we compare, then, the difference between a classic Han education, and a classic Roman education?
There are in fact VERY little difference. Philosophy, history, religion, and military strategy.


What?

Vitruvius did write a treatise on architecture. Why didn't Han dynasty write similar? because technological treatise would be entirely subject to constant review and they didn't want that. Han dynasty syncretized a lot of opposing ideas like taking a bit of this and that at a buffet rather than subjecting them to criticism. It would add more work load to the syncretization process. To the Han Chinese it was okay that you were a Confucianist but at the same time a Daoist and also a Buddhist but also a legalist. They felt "secure" in whatever there was while the Greeks which influenced the Romans had a knack of making very detailed distinctions.

I added some punctuation which made the sentence more readable, but I might of butcher your meaning, but without these I am not sure what you are saying.

If you think that the Romans rule without some kind of divine empowerment, then you should reread Roman history.

When Gaius Popillius Laenas walked up to King Antiochus IV of Syria, who just managed to conquered Egypt, and told him in plain terms that if he wishes to move any further, than the wrath of the Roman senate will be felt fully, and then drew a circle around the King. He said to him, oh great King, when you move, it better be the other way; oh by the way, cough up Egypt. Staring the King down with 12 lectors, he replied to the King's outrage question of where the hell is your army, Popillius Laenas said to him did you not see the empowerment that was given by the people and the senate of Rome to me? King Antiochus end up retreating, and gave up Egypt.

If you think Popillius Laenas does not believe some divine guidance and walked up to an army with 12 lectors behind his back, then he got a pair of giant iron balls.

Manifest Destiny is much the same as Mandate of Heaven, same as Divine Rights.

It's like with the city planning. The Han dynasty people won't think that anything is wrong with their city due to a "security" they feel. It's cosmological and correct. Yes it may be correct for half of the time but for the other half there may be little consideration. Every other city is like it why change? But if they would understand that there can't be a one size fits all solution then they'd understand how to resolve the issue of their cities. Instead of going for replacement of ideas replacement of the royal family was pursued.

Edited by mohistManiac, 21 April 2011 - 01:30 PM.

[William O'Chee]

That totally reminded me of something I was going to ask. That is how did ancient postal systems work? There must have been addresses but I don't recall anything like that.

Good question. In relation to the Romans, I don't really know how the postal system worked, but I do know how official correspondence was carried throughout the Empire. The Roman Empire had a complex bureaucracy which relied upon messengers carrying posts by road and by sea. Each province had a scriptorium, which copied and sent out texts. Because the Mediterranean Sea was at the heart of the Empire, a surprising amount of this went by sea. For example are now able to surmise that the Gospel of Luke was copied in the Scriptorium of Alexandria and propagated throughout the Empire by sea.

As for private mail, I think that sort of piggy-backed on the Imperial system. That would mean that a letter s=containing sandals could be sent to a soldier at Vindolanda because it went with the usual military correspondence which governed the Army and the rest of the Empire.

That is not a complete answer, though. Chris Wickham has demonstrated that two centuries after the fall of Rome people in Gaul were corresponding regularly between cities. How the letters got from one place to another at this time, I am not sure, but it did.

If I may just take another quick jab at the bias you were talking about concerning Roman intellectualism my guess is that they had a practice of writing treatises. They simply had an ideal of information dissemination that made things quicker to follow. On the other hand it seemed Han dynasty people merely kept imperial records of the best and brightest things but ended up commenting on them in very syncretic and esoteric fashion. Take city planning, many a Chinese wouldn't have been made aware that their cities were grand cosmic schemes, the most arbitrary of arbitrary city planning. By contrast Vitruvius's De Architura which while I've not read would have probably made more use of analysis into the utility nature of city planning.

See my post above. Basically the Romans and Greeks loved to write their treatises, and these works were collected in private libraries and traded in private hands. I suspect this made them very different from the Chinese, but I don't know enough about the latter to comment.

[mohistManiac]

I can see it has taken me too long to put my thoughts above into a post. I apologise. It is still the lead up to Anzac Day, and I haven't had a chance to put together my sources and citations. If people grant me a little indulgence for that, then here we go.

Technology is the practical application of scientific knowledge.

I am sure someone will want to dispute this, but the technology comes from the Greek tekhnologia, the systemic treatment of knowledge. That is literally what it means.

So, if technology is the practical application of scientific knowledge, is scientific knowledge something that happens on its own, or does it depend on some underlying intellectual structure?

I believe that a solid argument can be made for the following:

• The ancient Greeks developed the basis of scientific method
  
• Scientific method involves observation for the purpose of discerning the cause of an observed phenomenon
  
• This concept of causality underpinned Roman thinking
  
• This also led to an understanding of the importance of the taxonomy of knowledge, which was lacking in the East
  
• The principles of causality and taxonomy were the foundations of ongoing scientific development

I know I really ought to go through an elaborate proof of each of the above points, but many of them are generally accepted. For example, there is no argument that Aristotle in his Physics developed the idea that observation led to an understanding of underlying causes. It doesn't really matter that some of his suppositions as to cause were wrong, because the process of scientific observation which he championed eventually led to better understandings.

This latter statement is very important. The Greeks, and later the Romans, embraced disputation as a means by which the truth could be reached. This process of disputation involved an ongoing process of questioning and testing scientific hypotheses. Aristotle didn't have to be right, provided his methods were right. That's what scientific advancement is all about.

As for the Romans, they readily embraced and developed this in a wide range of subjects. The one with which I am most familiar is Roman law. The Roman legal process used a formula which applied a rigorous logical process to resolving legal disputes. This can be seen int he following formula:

Let Titius be judge. If it results that the plaintiff had given the thing under discussion to the defendant as guarantee for an owed sum, and this sum has been paid or the debt otherwise satisfied, or it depended on the defendant that it was not, and the thing was not returned to the plaintiff, condemn the defendant to pay as much as the matter will represent; otherwise, absolve him.

The formula sets out a logical process of enquiry which the judge had to follow. This was just the way Romans thought. Although argument by example is usually a poor way to develop a case, it is useful in this sense because it shows the importance of causality in Roman thought.

The other issue here is taxonomy. The Romans were endlessly seeking to classify things, to divide them into categories by distinguishing between fundamental characteristics. This is also important. It is intrinsic to understanding, and to scientific theory. Again, let me use an example from Roman law, but this time one with scientific significance.

It was an important element of property law to know what property might be subject to private ownership, and how it came into ownership (what Romans called modes of acquisition). An animal, for example, is considered to be the property of a person if it is within his control. Thus domesticated animals are the property of the person who controls them, or on whose property they may be contained. What then of wild animals that may be on someone's property? The Roman answer was to classify wild animals into two categories, those that roamed, and those that had an animus revertendi, i.e. it was in their nature to return to particular place, such as bees, or nesting birds. The latter were the property of the owner of the land to which they returned, The former were the property of anyone who could take control of them, even on another's land.

This whole process of enquiry was extraordinarily logical, and embraced both scientific method and taxonomy to arrive at the final result.

But still some people will argue that there was a Dark Age in Europe and that Roman technology had no bearing on later ages. The response to that is twofold. First, even if the Dark Ages did lead to a scientific hiatus, the basis of scientific knowledge was not lost, and when ultimately led to the furtherance of science in the West, which was absent in the East. Thus even if we accept there was a Dark Age, once that scientific knowledge was recovered, it still was the foundation for later discoveries. The argument is not that the West had better technology than the East, but that it had better scientific knowledge.

Secondly, there is a strong argument that the Dark Ages, if they did exist, are very much overstated. Remember, the Eastern Roman Empire continued after the fall of Rome. This wasn't Greece, but the Eastern Roman Empire, and they retained the scientific legacy of the earlier Roman Empire. That is why Constantinople was such a wonder to all those who visited it. This is often overlooked in many arguments about the Dark Ages.

But were the Dark Ages as dark as everyone believes? Popularly the Dark Ages are supposed to encompass a period from the 5th century AD to sometime between the 12th and 15th centuries. Yet within this period, we now know that there were surprising examples of scientific knowledge being developed and applied. For example, Isidore of Seville, who lived from 560 AD to 4 April 636 AD wrote the first encyclopaedia during this period - massive work of 448 chapters in 20 books.

In Germany at the court of Charlemagne, Alcuin of York (c735 AD to 19 May 804 AD) was busy translating the works of the classical Greeks. And 11th century Sicily was able to translate these same texts because they were available from Byzantium itself, as well as from Byzantine controlled territory in southern Italy, such as Naples.

The precursors to all of this stem from, or were in place by the time of the early Roman Empire, but seem absent from the Han.

So, there it is. I welcome your comments.

It's been my conclusion as well, Roman science was contingent upon Roman law and philosophy due to the practice of taxonomy but now I see it a bit clearer thanks to your comments connecting law and it's significance of inquiry into scientific causality.