qwertyu said:Hi! I'm new to this forum and must say I am very pleased that most posters seem well-informed. First, I must clarify that my family is of mixed heritage, Asian-German, so I see things from both sides - Asian and European.
Maciomo did a good job in the first post. That is exactly what would make a first step towards rapproachement. The only fault I can find with his post is when he dismissed China as having contributed much to modern society. History is a continuum, and the development in science/tech/philosophy/religion etc. is a long straight line. Without Chinese invention of type, books will not be as easily available during the age of European Enlightenment. Without Arabic numerals and their invention of Zero, Mathematics will not be what it is today, and perhaps there won't be an internet! It is important to give each culture its due because we start to see others more humanely, less racist and stereotypically. The Arabs are not just a bunch of bloodthirsty barbarians! The Chinese gave us all a fabulous start, with Math [eg.Pascal's Triangle], the compass for travel, astronomy, paper, paper money, culture, East Asian Buddhism [it is different from India's], etc.
A continuum yes, but no straight line. This is a very simplified view, which wrongly uses modern times as the root & follows the path backwards. If you look at it the other way round, you will find many branches with dead ends (some flourished for a while, others never grew very much), branches that grow parallel up to modernity & branches that after a while of parallel growth coalesced, a.s.o.qwertyu said:History is a continuum, and the development in science/tech/philosophy/religion etc. is a long straight line.
Pretty improbable. There is no evidence that Gutenberg copied a Chinese or Korean (which AFAIK had a greater influence than the Chinese one) invention.Without Chinese invention of type, books will not be as easily available during the age of European Enlightenment.
Each culture its "due": the Western zero most probably originated in India (but other cultures had similar ideas).Without Arabic numerals and their invention of Zero
I disagree. What about a culture where there is not much of a due? What have the Papuas given our modern culture? Are they less worth because it might be nothing?It is important to give each culture its due because we start to see others more humanely, less racist and stereotypically.
The Chinese gave us culture? You're sitting on a quite high horse here (since you're half-German you may understand: Du sitzt auf dem hohen Ross). Other cultures developed earlier than the Chinese, hence I can't see how that could be "China's due." East Asian Buddhism takes on various forms & I doubt that all originated in China, mathematics & astronomy can also be found earlier in other cultures than in China.The Chinese gave us all a fabulous start, with Math [eg.Pascal's Triangle], the compass for travel, astronomy, paper, paper money, culture, East Asian Buddhism [it is different from India's], etc.
qwertyu said:Hi bossel, I agree with a lot of what you wrote, but also have some points :
A continuum yes, but no straight line. This is a very simplified view, which wrongly uses modern times as the root & follows the path backwards. If you look at it the other way round, you will find many branches with dead ends (some flourished for a while, others never grew very much), branches that grow parallel up to modernity & branches that after a while of parallel growth coalesced, a.s.o.
True for a lot of history, but with regard to Chinese contribution to Modernity, it is a straight trajectory. I was reading Robert Temple's The Genius of China which detail the inventions from Science, Agriculture, Mathematics. A lot of the technology invented by the Chinese are still in use today. It is a fascinating read, and is supported by excellent illustrations and research. And of course there're Leibniz & Jung.
Pretty improbable. There is no evidence that Gutenberg copied a Chinese or Korean (which AFAIK had a greater influence than the Chinese one) invention.
In his book The Invention of Printing in China and Its Spread Westward, T. F. Carter argues that the ingenious idea of printing spread westward from China in the wake of the Mongol invasions, first of Turkistan and Persia, and then of Russia, Poland and Hungary. Carter provides strong circumstantial evidence to prove his point, a point that has come to be shared by many scholars. Try googling.
Each culture its "due": the Western zero most probably originated in India (but other cultures had similar ideas).
My mistake, in fact, the first zero was traced to China.ok, I'm not trying to make anyone a sinophile, but I do think that credit should be given where it is due. I also hope that future generations will remember the achievements of today's American and European scientists/inventors too, in the areas of biotech, cybertech, club culture, mind-altering drugs, etc.
I disagree. What about a culture where there is not much of a due? What have the Papuas given our modern culture? Are they less worth because it might be nothing?
You misinterpreted my intention. It is more about the vilification of others I am concerned about, especially vis the Chinese and now Arabs/Muslims. They are depicted as barbaric, which is untrue. When the Papuans are vilified in the press, I'll be writing about how the Australians owe them! See, it's not true that they don't contribute to modernity either.
It is interesting where certain things originate, but it is in no way important. Even less, if you consider that it doesn't make much sense to attribute an invention in the distant past to a modern nation.
I guess I have a more wholistic view of the world. it is not about demanding credit and respect for any particular culture, it is about understanding the universal aspect of our civilisation, to know where a bit from here, a bit from there, and here we are, re. theory of evolution, complexity, emergence, tao, etc.
The Chinese gave us culture? You're sitting on a quite high horse here (since you're half-German you may understand: Du sitzt auf dem hohen Ross). Other cultures developed earlier than the Chinese, hence I can't see how that could be "China's due." East Asian Buddhism takes on various forms & I doubt that all originated in China, mathematics & astronomy can also be found earlier in other cultures than in China.
Is cultural influences something separate from science, knowledge, philosophy, architecture, art, etc? 1 example, VanGogh>Japanese prints>Chinese 2D paintings
Of course not everything comes from China, I didn't claim that. But to deny that Chinese civilisation have a part in the evolution of the world today is equally preposterous.
Nope. You're still looking the wrong way. Looking backwards it may seem like a straight trajectory, but that's not the way to approach history.qwertyu said:with regard to Chinese contribution to Modernity, it is a straight trajectory.
Temple's book is available here at the university's library & I will have a look at it. Thanks for the recommendation.I was reading Robert Temple's The Genius of China which detail the inventions from Science, Agriculture, Mathematics. A lot of the technology invented by the Chinese are still in use today.
Carter's book is from 1925 (not available in a local library, hence I won't be able to have a look at it) & therefore pretty outdated.In his book The Invention of Printing in China and Its Spread Westward, T. F. Carter argues that the ingenious idea of printing spread westward from China in the wake of the Mongol invasions, first of Turkistan and Persia, and then of Russia, Poland and Hungary. Carter provides strong circumstantial evidence to prove his point, a point that has come to be shared by many scholars.
I hope, you're kidding.My mistake, in fact, the first zero was traced to China.
I see your intention & it may be honorable. Yet, I don't see why any culture would need to contribute to modernity in order not to be vilified.When the Papuans are vilified in the press, I'll be writing about how the Australians owe them! See, it's not true that they don't contribute to modernity either.
I prefer the chaotic world view: a little butterfly here, a little butterfly there.I guess I have a more wholistic view of the world.
Well, OK, but I interpreted "The Chinese gave us all a fabulous start, with [...] culture" as such.Of course not everything comes from China, I didn't claim that.
Nobody would deny Chinese contributions, although -again- I don't see why such contributions would be necessary.But to deny that Chinese civilisation have a part in the evolution of the world today is equally preposterous.
bossel said:Nope. You're still looking the wrong way. Looking backwards it may seem like a straight trajectory, but that's not the way to approach history.
I see your intention & it may be honorable. Yet, I don't see why any culture would need to contribute to modernity in order not to be vilified.
Another question is, whether you can credit the culture for inventors who by chance lived in this culture's sphere of influence. I don't think so, inventions are made by individuals (or by small groups of dedicated individuals). The culture at best serves as a stimulating environment, but not more.To give credit, where it is due, give it to the inventors!
I prefer the chaotic world view: a little butterfly here, a little butterfly there.
Today's humans are homo sapiens, & there is still some confusion where to trace mankind to: one single group in Africa (the favoured & most probable view) or multiple origins. Human evolution is just as much a tree with dead branches as history (we don't know yet whether some of the branches rejoined after a while).qwertyu said:you can trace the evolution of today's humans directly to homo sapiens, even though other older humanoids existed, today's paper to its original incarnation, or languages to its latin or anglo-saxon roots, etc.
In hindsight, both are equally traceable, I think (what makes it a bit harder regarding the weather is the even greater lack of data than regarding history). You can see & map major currents, but the closer you look the blurrier the picture gets.I would argue that history is more direct, easier to map and trace than the weather!
That's not disputed, but it had a very limited influence (no wonder, if you think of the fact that you'd need millions of these little character stamps to be able to print a book). What is improbable is the transmission of knowledge about movable type to Europe. Even in the paper you linked (BTW, pretty poor. I wouldn't have got a proficiency certificate for something like this) you'll find only blockprinting mentioned:Movable type was invented in China, in the form of clay units
Perhaps Temple is a sinophiliac. You have these guys in the West, just think of Menzies.I was flipping through the Temple book, and there, the concept of the zero first arose in China, then Indo-China [Cambodia], and then India.
Of course you have a point there, since there are a lot of eggheads in this world who think that if you didn't contribute to the whole you're worthless. I just don't subscribe to this attitude.acknowledging the achievements of a people's culture contributes to de-vilification of those people, but not the other way round, i.e. not acknowledging the achievements of a people's culture does not lead to vilification of said people?
Actually, aristocracy originally also means "rule by the best".I would credit the earliest Chinese system of promoting meritocracy vs European system of aristocracy for their rapid progress.
Here you are slightly mistaken, even in Europe that varied. Eg. in Germanic communities the king/chieftain was traditionally elected, although the function was partly hereditary. But yeah, you could say, in the Middle Ages the blood line gained much too great an importance in most of Europe.Whereas in Europe, until the Enlightenment, the bloodline/church dominated power.
Not at all, I like such debates, although we seem to have slightly differing definitions of logic. But this makes it just interesting.I hope I don't come across as privileging science and logic too much
bossel said:Today's humans are homo sapiens, & there is still some confusion where to trace mankind to: one single group in Africa (the favoured & most probable view) or multiple origins. Human evolution is just as much a tree with dead branches as history (we don't know yet whether some of the branches rejoined after a while).
The roots of languages are an equally complicated field of study: eg. English having Anglo-Saxon roots is a very simplified view.
In hindsight, both are equally traceable, I think (what makes it a bit harder regarding the weather is the even greater lack of data than regarding history). You can see & map major currents, but the closer you look the blurrier the picture gets.
Even in the paper you linked (BTW, pretty poor. I wouldn't have got a proficiency certificate for something like this) you'll find only blockprinting mentioned
Not at all, I like such debates, although we seem to have slightly differing definitions of logic. But this makes it just interesting.
That's 200,000 years & still only looking backwards. If you follow history backward you will always be able to find nice straight ways. That's just how you look at it, though. History works the other way round.qwertyu said:If you are interested, you should look up the Mitochondrial Eve, which in effect projects a mathematical vector to Africa. My source was Richard Dawkins' River out of Eden.
No, there isn't. There are several roots to English (of course depending on your definition of root). The term Anglo-Saxon alone shows 2 of them. Another question is how far you go back to find the root(s): Indo-European, or even further?Root, sir, the word, root. There might be Latin, Sanskrit, Germanic influences, but there's a distinct root.
Trying to insult me? Of course I read the whole stuff & it is pretty poor!First, you need to click on all the side links!
Googling wouldn't solve very much, you can find links to prove every crap on Google.The origin of the printing press has been covered exhaustively, you just need to google.
I don't remember the context in which I said this, but I'm pretty sure I meant that the consideration as a crime is the same. The effects on the victim vary obviously. But if you want to follow that road, you'd have to do it thoroughly & differentiate not only between torture & killing, but also between different kinds of torture, length of agony ASO.you said there wasn't any difference in a baby thrown over the cliff and a baby burned to death. Maybe, but only if the deaths are instantaneous. I would say that being tortured to death, Nanjing/Unit 731 style is much worse than say, being killed in a blast of gunfire.