Thread: Reapeating History

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.

This is a pretty huge and potentially sprawling subject/question. I don't have the time to think this through completely, but I'll throw this out there. Does he address the specific economic, geopolitical, social, etc issues involved in each of those civilizations? I mean over time (Egypt was around for a very long time), stuff happens and things change...To say they fell for one or two reasons? I don't think so.

That said, I do believe we are getting away from some of those values that helped build the country. I do not think scientific development vs. religion is part of this. There is room for both. Believing in science doesn't mean one can't be spiritual and virtuous. Also, how many people really lived by those virtues in the past? years ago, many of the negative realities of day to day life were swept under the rug. To what extent do we idealize what things were like? Just a question. I'm sure it's all a matter of degree.

Jordan

Originally Posted by honedright

Thought I'd give some people a break (??) and start a new thread for this.

I am reading "A Discourse on the Arts and Sciences" by Jean Rousseau. He makes, if I am understanding him correctly, a good point about the success and decline of great civilizations. I think what he says is relevant to the discussion, in other threads, regarding the "divine" basis (call it the creator, God, what have you...) for inalienable rights as written in the founding documents for the United States.

Rousseau writes about 3 of the greatest civilizations in the history - Egypt, Greece, and Rome. In all three cases, if I understand him correctly, he is saying that as the arts and sciences of these three civilizations increased, their virtues decreased. And in all three cases, with the loss of virtue, all civilizations fell. Specifically they were conquered by those that had once been the conquered. Someone correct me if I have misstated history.

I'm wondering if the same is happening again, today, in the U.S. As more Americans adopt modern knowledge (science) and reject the divine as a basis for natural rights, is this not the same as a decrease in virtue? The same, or similar as what Rousseau described as happening in Egypt, Greece, and Rome? Once again, any historians in the house, correct me where I am wrong.

There is a reason for the old saying that: "those who fail to study history are doomed to repeat it." And I wonder if that is exactly what is happening now. If Rome can fall, America certainly can. And what a shame if we, not only let that happen right under our noses, but also should have known better.

Discussion?

I'll just say that I'm with Bruno (and Voltaire) on this. The adoption of science is, IMHO, a laughable excuse.

You're not wrong that those empires declined, but the reasons expressed by Rousseau are highly debatable at best.

Well, maybe I was premature in starting the thread. As I said, I may have mis-understood Rousseau. After all I had just read the couple of paragraphs where Rousseau mentions this, and not much detail was given. Part of the reason for posting was to get feedback. Thank you for the feedback.

BTW, I have the 6 volume set of Gibbon's "Decline and Fall" waiting for me to dig in at home. I'm sure it will be a good read.

Originally Posted by honedright

Thought I'd give some people a break (??) and start a new thread for this.

I am reading "A Discourse on the Arts and Sciences" by Jean Rousseau. He makes, if I am understanding him correctly, a good point about the success and decline of great civilizations. I think what he says is relevant to the discussion, in other threads, regarding the "divine" basis (call it the creator, God, what have you...) for inalienable rights as written in the founding documents for the United States.

Rousseau writes about 3 of the greatest civilizations in the history - Egypt, Greece, and Rome. In all three cases, if I understand him correctly, he is saying that as the arts and sciences of these three civilizations increased, their virtues decreased. And in all three cases, with the loss of virtue, all civilizations fell. Specifically they were conquered by those that had once been the conquered. Someone correct me if I have misstated history.

I'm wondering if the same is happening again, today, in the U.S. As more Americans adopt modern knowledge (science) and reject the divine as a basis for natural rights, is this not the same as a decrease in virtue? The same, or similar as what Rousseau described as happening in Egypt, Greece, and Rome? Once again, any historians in the house, correct me where I am wrong.

There is a reason for the old saying that: "those who fail to study history are doomed to repeat it." And I wonder if that is exactly what is happening now. If Rome can fall, America certainly can. And what a shame if we, not only let that happen right under our noses, but also should have known better.

Discussion?

While Rome (as used by Rousseau) can be considered a single civilization; the same is not true for either Greece or Egypt. In fact, in the case of Greece, there was no single "Greek" civilization. The Greece Rousseau refers to was in fact a loose collection of independent city states with many different cultures, hardly a single culture or civilization. The relative power and influence of these different civilizations rose and fell over time as external factors changed. True unification really only came with Alexander of Macedonia, arguably a greek, who ultimately united these independent states by conquest.

Egypt is even more complex. Over the course of time, there were numerous Egyptian civilizations (usually identified in history as Empires). The existance of these societies in time were often separated by periods of conquest an occupation by other powers of the time. In addition, for much of Egyptian history, there were actually two independent Egyptian kingdoms, the Upper Kingdom and the Lower Kingdom. To give you an idea of how complex this is:

The Great Pyramid was built by a very early civilization. By the time of Tutukamin, the Egyptians did not even know who built the pyramids or what they were for. Most people would include the period of the Ptolymes (which ended with Cleopatera) as Egyptian, but the Ptolymes were actually Greek and assumed the rule of Egypt after its conquest by Alexander of Macedonia.

So the question that all of this begs is: Just which Greek or Egyptian civilizations did Rousseau mean?

Originally Posted by honedright

In all three cases, if I understand him correctly, he is saying that as the arts and sciences of these three civilizations increased, their virtues decreased. And in all three cases, with the loss of virtue, all civilizations fell.
Discussion?

Hmmm, sounds like something from the Unibomber Manifesto.