Thread: Reapeating History

Originally Posted by Bruno

Ah yes. Science is to blame. Spare the brimstone and spoil the congregation eh?

In the case of Rome, they fell because they overextended their conquest. They used the spoils of conquest to finance more conquest and support the decadent life of the upper crust. When the conquests halted, the entire thing collapsed in on itself.

One does not need the divine to be virtuous. If the dark ages have proven anything, it is that the divine can be just as perverted as anything else.

Well Said.

Yeah, I am not so sure. I am by no stretch any kind of expert on history at all, but I do know a little bit about data and its interpretation (which I guess is all history is in the end).

Now I am not saying Rousseau's hypothesis is wrong, but I would like to know how he discounted other plausible hypotheses to come to his conclusions regarding this rather amorphous and subjective word "virtue", which surely must have different meanings depending on which cultural context you care to consider.

Why wouldn't an equally plausible hypothesis be that as each culture became "great", they also became targets of the lesser civilisations? After all, you don't get to the top without creating enemies. Concurrently, the increased wealth and power of that civilisation leads to a larger proportion of the populace being free to indulge in more esoteric pursuits like science and also becomming used to living the high life. In turn, this places pressure on those in charge to extend their reach in order to service the population's desires. And then, blammo! Target + stretched too thin leads to decline?

I don't know, I'm probably displaying my ignorance of these things more than anything else, but I still think there would be a lot more going on than a loss of "virtue" in explaining why a civilisation would decline.

James.

Originally Posted by Bruno

Ah yes. Science is to blame. Spare the brimstone and spoil the congregation eh?

In the case of Rome, they fell because they overextended their conquest. They used the spoils of conquest to finance more conquest and support the decadent life of the upper crust. When the conquests halted, the entire thing collapsed in on itself.

One does not need the divine to be virtuous. If the dark ages have proven anything, it is that the divine can be just as perverted as anything else.

Maybe not in the way you are thinking. I think what Rousseau meant is that "science" equates to opulence. In other words knowledge lead to more complacency/ sloth and less vigilance as in regards to virtue/ morality.

That's my take on it anyways.

Originally Posted by Amyn

Interesting topic... for discussion from what I understand and I am no historian the Roman empire fell because it over extended itself by undertaking military conquests to colonize other countries.

Very soon it was running out money and borrowing from other to sustain its operations. The army was extended beyond its means and the empire became vulnerable to attacks from outsiders.

It was the greed of Rome and its citizens that led to its fall which you can say was a loss of its morals.

Maybe due to greed? Bigger empire, more luxury? Maybe this is consistent with what Rousseau meant?

Originally Posted by Amyn

Interesting topic... for discussion from what I understand and I am no historian the Roman empire fell because it over extended itself by undertaking military conquests to colonize other countries.

Very soon it was running out money and borrowing from other to sustain its operations. The army was extended beyond its means and the empire became vulnerable to attacks from outsiders.

It was the greed of Rome and its citizens that led to its fall which you can say was a loss of its morals.

This sounds very like the USA today I'm afraid.

Hmm, moral decay from within, increased hostility within the civilization directed towards the culture as a whole and an unending series of wars which drained the coffers of state. Sound familiar?

It's my understanding that Rome was overrun by hairy barbarians. Motto: shave more and better. All this thinking makes my head hurt anyway.

Okay, I think a lot of intelligent people are posting here...

But I'm not sure they know what they're talking about: Rousseau. Most of the posts here have nothing to do with R.'s Discourses, although many are vaguely linked. In the interest of sound, Socratic, discourse please refrain from speculating or commenting beyond the question...

exempli grata: Rousseau has nothing to say about religion. Being used to the modern political idea that religion and science are somehow antonymous, many have made the argument "Is religion the cause of the fall of empires". This is not Rousseau's point. He believes that an increase in learning leads to people living luxuriously rather than intelligently, and therefore nations fall. I.E. Rome grew large and rich, and the ruling class used science and technology to improve their quality of life. They stopped being diligent (In many ways Roman) and therefore the nation fell.

Again, I don't question the intellect of anyone involvd here, I just see what seems to be a chronic unfamiliarity with the subject.

Originally Posted by Jimbo

Yeah, I am not so sure. I am by no stretch any kind of expert on history at all, but I do know a little bit about data and its interpretation (which I guess is all history is in the end).

Now I am not saying Rousseau's hypothesis is wrong, but I would like to know how he discounted other plausible hypotheses to come to his conclusions regarding this rather amorphous and subjective word "virtue", which surely must have different meanings depending on which cultural context you care to consider.

Why wouldn't an equally plausible hypothesis be that as each culture became "great", they also became targets of the lesser civilisations? After all, you don't get to the top without creating enemies. Concurrently, the increased wealth and power of that civilisation leads to a larger proportion of the populace being free to indulge in more esoteric pursuits like science and also becomming used to living the high life. In turn, this places pressure on those in charge to extend their reach in order to service the population's desires. And then, blammo! Target + stretched too thin leads to decline?

I don't know, I'm probably displaying my ignorance of these things more than anything else, but I still think there would be a lot more going on than a loss of "virtue" in explaining why a civilisation would decline.

James.

James-
You've pretty well paraphrased Rousseau... Have you ever read his Discourses? If not (and this goes for everyone) I highly recommend them. They are brilliantly witty and easy to understand (very enjoyable!) and whether you agree with them or not they really will make you think.

Check out the big brain on that guy.