I mean think about it if I randomly took 15000 people and scattered them on a totally new planet what would happen, assuming some survived with in a few years people would get to gather for muchol support if only to have and raise children, not to long after that you would get family gropes forming and that almost by definition means clan like units would start. It wouldn't take to much more time to get some one who had a nack for " "the great game" as some have called it. And he or she would get two or three clans to gather to face some danger like anther clan or wiled animal ...or climate change and then after they took care of that problem there would be anther and another until they forget there were different and became a tribe then there neighbors would look and see how powerful they were and start making tribes of there own if only to balents power. With groups this large around villages and towns are almost guaranteed. These would begin stimulating trade and specialized workers form there your only a hop skip and a jump from cites.once you have those even as city stats nations and empires will be sure to form. So I started with a complete leveling and ended up back with Civilization. But is it really that simple I mean why did some culture never get past the Family/clan units, or why did the Greeks stop with city states for so long or how did the Iroquois conquered an area the size of the Roman Empire but as for as I know there were just a lose confederation there was no unified authority the famous cliff dwellers of the American west were the second and lesser attempt of that grupe to advance (the first had stone sites of plateaus that were ruffly comparable to medieval Europe) or why did the Japanese perhaps the epitome of civilized living spend hundreds of years entrenching them selves in the feudal system instead of moving on?
And if Civilization is so fragile why didn't it brake down in eruip? Why did they keep porgresing when it seems all the others stagnated or fellopare. true when Rome and Bizanteum fell geat loses were made but civolisation servived why? Why didn't it colaps like so many others or do you think it will and we just haven't goten there yet ?
I think it depends on the people. Their beliefs and what they want for their families. How they WANT to grow and whether they care about community or not. How they think THEY, individually, will benefit from certain things. Different people like different things and different ways of life. Religion ties in, too. Take Muslims and hermits: huge crowds worshiping in the same place at the same time vs random people disappearing into the hills till their teeth fall out to fast and not interact with people. Now, America was founded on Christian principals and people CARED (for the most part) for the others around them. Plus, the majority of Americans were striving, at first, for basically the same thing: Freedom for everyone. As for Europe, heh, I may have descended from there but, heh, I know practically nothing about it.
ReplyDeletedo you think Individuals have that much effect on the evolution of cultures ?
ReplyDeleteThat depends on the culture of the individual and what the culturally affected individual is trying to do. One individual might plan the attack on a great city, but they can't say it was the individual that actually brought down the city. He/she had the help of the weapon-forgers, the people he/she went to for help, the allies, the warriors, the loyalty towards the leaders etc...etc.... But yes, especially in America, individuals make a lot of differences, even if they're strong leaders because of the way they were taught at home, because of their friends, siblings etc. Individuals are important through God's planning. Many individuals have changed and turned and brought about our culture.
ReplyDelete@3d6361c54e8593b002f3391ea29e2bb9:disqus :bravo! A very astute and moving socio-political analysis. You should post on the history subjects more often, or does stuff like that only come periodically?(like Haley's comet or something :)
ReplyDelete@Rennuke:disqus :Is civilization inevitable? I would say yes. I say this for two reasons.
Reason Number One: Humanity is not a closed-system, and in an open system unexpected stimuli constantly happen. The unexpected can cause either positive or negative changes, but it always causes changes. Humans would come together if simply for safety and the ability to surround themselves with other like-minded individuals.
Reason Number Two: Man is feeling being and not an automaton. People require purpose,contact,fulfillment. I do not mean to get all psychiatry, but the fact is that people want to feel like they are part of something larger and that they have an identity in that something larger. (This just illustrates the longing of man's soul for some kind of fulfillment, God's fulfillment.)
As for "why did some civilizations prosper and others die?"
it is specific and intricate in every case. The causes and decline might have been predictable, they might have even been typical, but they are always specific to that country.
The struggle between group vs individual is a deeply implanted struggle between two types of thought processes. Both the sides have Pros and Cons, but looking at history, I think I rightly say that the importance of individuals should be the majority and the importance of the group minority.
In conclusion, I am can conclusively say that whether any civilization forms or not, or if they fall or not, is completely inter-dependent on whether they are based on Christian morals and have a God based center.
Gryphon: Sorry, my moments of brilliance only come so often. But HEY!they come a little more often than Haley's comet, good grief, doesn't that thing only come once every some-thousand years?! Btw, I wish you would use more examples when you are explaining your opinions, some would argue that it's my blond hair, but you sometimes don't make complete connection with my brain. It's annoying to only understand part of what you are reading. Heh, probably everyone else either understands you fine or passes it off as, "Well, he IS Jordan." :)
ReplyDeleteWhich stuff would like more examples on?(and usually when I start giving more examples people's eyes glaze over and they just nod their heads saying "yes,yes,very interesting." )
ReplyDeleteIf something sounds too un-specific for non-history-savants, then add examples. I would think people would only be bored if the example is something they've never heard of. Heh, not much help to be told that the confusing thing you just attempted to read (or listen to) was a lot like the first three days of the second month of the reign of some long dead monarch you would usually only hear of in yellowed transcripts translated into Ancient English, years before Martin Luther. But you don't really need to add examples to too many things, only a small part. Not when you talk about Cyrus the Great and all those other people, just when you say things like, "...the importance of individuals should be the majority and importance of the group minority." or, "...I am can conclusively say..." I get the first one but, seriously, do YOU even understand the second one? Learning/reading is more fun when something you learned about already ties in.
ReplyDeleteHahahaha
ReplyDeleteQuite right about the use of little-known/(useless) facts.
EDITED VERSION FOR BETTER UNDERSTANDING
"The struggle between group vs individual is a deeply implanted struggle
between two types of thought processes. The group mentality stresses the submission of the individual to the greater whole. Such as in Feudal Japan, where the actions of one's Clan would define your successes or failures. The individualized mentality states that the individuals welfare is more important than the group's interest. This was developed to the extreme in Greece, where Spartan boys were advised to pick fights inside their groups to show their talent. Both the sides have Pros and
Cons, but looking at history, I think I rightly say that the importance
of individuals should be the majority and the importance of the group
minority."
"In conclusion, I am can conclusively say that my conclusion is (note the repeated usage for ironic effect) that if any civilization falls or not, whether they
form or not, is completely inter-dependent on
whether they are based on Christian morals and have a God based center. "
@3d6361c54e8593b002f3391ea29e2bb9:disqus :Any better?
Gryphon: Yes, I am can say that was better. So, what country do you think best and mostly embodies your ideal of the right mentality. Past or present.
ReplyDeleteYes, I imagine that some of the times you brought in an example, the dense brain you were trying to get through to (to get to the gray matter, what?) only became more befuzzled because the brain hadn't the foggiest what you were talking about, donchya know?
@3d6361c54e8593b002f3391ea29e2bb9:disqus :Oh yes, I know.(I live with a brother who knows and talks about sports to the Nth degree. So unless he uses examples I can understand, my fractured mind can no comprehend.)
ReplyDeleteI do not think that there has ever been a civilization that perfectly embodies what I would think is the right way . Because there is no way to balance them both in equal parts, due to that fact, I would say that the balance should be about 65/35 with majority for individuality . But seeing as how you asked for a country that "best and mostly embodies your ideal", I will try and answer that. The United States during the Reagen Era and maybe America from 1870- 1900 best fill my parameters of caring most about the welfare of the individual, but also placing a high importance on the prosperity of the whole. That is in contrast with modern America, which places extreme emphasis on the individual only.
Oh, yes, Deep in Debt and Obamacare. Not a very good combination. That's why I like reading about early America.
ReplyDeleteWhat about the importenst of principle. I know that sound totally of topic but think about it if the importens is totley on the individual then you end up with a 60s American tipe view and with a completely grupe focus you get French revaluations it's obvious that you need something in the middle but what about nations that have there emphasis is on Principle there aren't many to use as examples but how about ancient Israel or maybe even WW2 Japan. Any nation that's entire gole is on something outside itself?
ReplyDeleteVery good point, Rennuke.
ReplyDelete@Rennuke:disqus : Yeah, the fact is that without some foundation of morals or principals no stability can be found.(as far as I am concerned Principle is one of the most important things.)
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteSome people might think of codes of living when principles are mentioned, but it's more a deep faith in God and what he can do through you and the segment of Earth in question, that makes the nation or country and makes it truly famous. Rome was founded on codes of living, morals and discipline, but what works of Rome will last forever? Did Rome work towards winning victories for God's victory? PHC is a college of God's calling. It was founded expressly to honor God. To educate young people to be best equipped for what God was calling them to be. PHC has positively thrived. It has added on and added on to what came first. America was founded on Godly principles and she thrived. She grew and was proved true through many wars. Now her leaders are growing, shall we say, less incorruptible (though, the past ones weren't ALL perfect epitomes of godly leaders). She is straying from God, just look around to see what has happened when we no longer rely on God to uphold our country and keep her strong in Him. This country is famous for, among other things, her founding fathers and her founding fathers were strong Christians with strong morals and strong principles.
So true Deigh! We need to pray that our country will go back to the original foundation of faith in God!
ReplyDeleteum DEIGH_EXPERT that sounded like an advertisement for PHC are you a spammer ? :)
ReplyDeleteI was using EXAMPLES! Are you adverse to my example? Do you have something against PHC? :) Umm, I can hear the playlist but why I can't see it?
ReplyDeleteOh, wait, there it is. I found it. Heh.
ReplyDelete