Reapeating History

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?

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.

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 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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

---

It could also be argued that with wealth and power, Romans no longer had to behave like Romans. They didn't have to be disciplined or otherwise "on the ball". They could hire Germans to do their fighting. The definition of "Rome" and "Romans" also changed greatly. It was no longer just a city, but most of the western world. That's a complicated proposition. There were many factors that combined over time to lead to the downfall. Which Greek civilization are we talking about or Egyptian for that matter?

Jordan

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.

Interestingly enough the preeminent historian on the topic, Edward Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, believed that Christianity played a large part in the fall of the empire. Here is an interesting essay on the subject of Gibbon's conclusions.

The selling out of the American working class is going to largely responsible for China and India becoming the economic super powers in the world while the USA and Europe fall behind. The fact that they will finance it with our money is the irony of it all.

The love of a buck by the entrepreneurs killed the goose that laid the golden egg. (American manufacturing) I would say buy American the job you save may be your own but the cow is so far out of the barn that there is little point in closing the door now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruno

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amyn

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.

---

Interesting topic. Call me a kook here, but think of some undetermined time in the future looking back on the history of the U.S. and substitute "USA" for Rome in both of the above quotes. I see such an outcome as entirely probable based on past to present similarities.

As humans, we have remarkable qualities and abilities. I think it's undeniable that as humans, we also have a propensity toward greed, malice fear and exploitation. I'm in the Divine camp. Left to our own devices, in my opinion, over and over and over and over and over again we've proven as a species that we won't, as a group, look up from our iPods, gaze into each other's eyes and wrap our arms lovingly around our neighbor on every level from the person living next to us on up to those in power across the globe. Not in the past, not now and not even if with science we advance to where we can hover in a lotus position and travel by thought. Concepts such as The Venus Project are silly unachievable pipe dreams given the flaws I make mention of that are inherent in humans.

Er, ah, I really am a happy positive guy though, honest!:)

Chris L

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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. :hmmm:

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.

Quote:

---

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.

"Richness of apparel may proclaim the man of fortune, and elegance the man of taste; but true health and manliness are known by different signs. It is under the homespun of the labourer, and not beneath the gilt and tinsel of the courtier, that we should look for strength and vigour of body."




Before art had moulded our behaviour, and taught our passions to speak an artificial language, our morals were rude but natural; and the different ways in which we behaved proclaimed at the first glance the difference of our dispositions. Human nature was not at bottom better then than now; but men found their security in the ease with which they could see through one another, and this advantage, of which we no longer feel the value, prevented their having many vices."



"We no longer dare seem what we really are, but lie under a perpetual restraint; in the meantime the herd of men, which we call society, all act under the same circumstances exactly alike, unless very particular and powerful motives prevent them. Thus we never know with whom we have to deal; and even to know our friends we must wait for some critical and pressing occasion; that is, till it is too late; for it is on those very occasions that such knowledge is of use to us."


....Sound Familiar......Gentlemen?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by matt321

Hmmm, sounds like something from the Unibomber Manifesto.

---

Really....

Well, maybe he read Rousseau too. ????