“
With regard to the 'numerous advances of human civilisation, with each generation building on the achievements of its own forbears', I would say this is true of the history of our society, which took a couple of painstaking millennia to get to where it is now. However, that it is not the case in many other parts of the world, which appear to be 'stuck in a rut' and not benefitting much from the 'building' of their own achievements, for whatever reason (climate and the resulting natural environment, geology, religion, traditions linked to those things, and so on, all interrelated).
Originally posted by Sapphire
”
Your analysis is anglo-centric. You have ignored the fact civilization developed in Asia and Africa before it did in Europe. I didn't actually say anything about geo-specific civilizations, I talked about human civilization as a whole.
Are you really suggesting that your so-called, "stuck in a rut" societies are not civilised? Or are you suggesting that there has been no technical advances coming from within them? That would also be wrong.
“
If you look at the Aboriginals of Australia, they existed without 'advancing' for millennia, since they were limited by their natural environment from doing so, and didn't really need to 'develop'. 'Advancements' have generally come about from competition between clans, tribes, city-states and so on (vying for diminishing resources, especially due human populations outgrowing their habitats, has been a driving force behind such competition). I don't think the human species has changed to alter the basic 'tribal' drive of humanity, however much we, in our currently cosseted society, may try to convince ourselves that it has.
Originally posted by Sapphire
”
Hmmm, you're getting dangerously close to representing the idea of the 'white man's burden'. Aboriginal society was civilized; technical advancement and civilzation are not the same thing.
You'll find that a number of major developments have nothing to do with clan/tribal/national rivalries. For example, the printing press is the product of ingenuity divorced from these supposed pressure, so too is Newton's
Principia Mathematica, Einstein's theory of relativity and the corpus of works (Planck, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Born) that established quantum mechanics. While such competing agencies (a more accurate and inclusive historical term) as you hint at do have relevance, they are not the only method of affecting change. Causation is complex and myriad in its forms.
“
Also, I do believe that history seems cyclical rather than linear.
Originally posted by Sapphire
”
No, history is not cyclical. This is one of the great myths, but neither is it linear. Linear history would suggest progress, in the mould of the Whig view, but this has frequently been demonstrated to be false. Cyclical history fails to appreciate the unique characteristics of all events and socities, and instead opts to draw superficial comparisons to reach a flawed view.
“
All great civilisations fall. I somehow don't think that our own civilisation is immune to a fall, however improbable that may currently seem to many in our society. Decadence and probably complacency generally precede falls in human civilisations, and there is some evidence of those things in our society.
Originally posted by Sapphire
”
I haven't actually argued anything to do with this.
I do, however, take exception to the idea of, "great civilizations" as this is a pejorative view.