The Armour Archive

Russ Mitchell wrote:@ Alric: he's bloviating and playing the troll by insisting that everybody have his discussion, rather than letting people get on with answering the question at hand.

Fair enough, I'll take it to political.

Russ Mitchell wrote:@ Alric: he's bloviating and playing the troll by insisting that everybody have his discussion, rather than letting people get on with answering the question at hand. Historical philosophy as he's expressing it does NOT explain why this decline occurs in the 13th or 14th century (as opposed to the 11th, or the 16th), and to even begin to make it do so he has to engage in some pretty torturous logic (such as in the other thread where he declares that the Ottoman empire doesn't qualify as having been a muslim culture, which is... special).

Completely pointless.

BACK ON TOPIC, are there not specific changes in natural philosophy (aka, science as they knew it) that occur in the 13th and 14th century which might be tied into this issue?

I actually posted on that, but it was shaved off into another thread for being "political."


Not gonna waste my time doing it again.

So it's back online then? YAY!

Unfortunately the question was answered, and what I was going to say in relation to the topic was already said, so this is all that's left.

If you'd kept your Christian perspective out of a question oriented towards understanding Islamic society's relation to technological advancement, the thread wouldn't have been split up in the first place.

Ah, but thats just it....virtually everyone here is arguing from a christian/western perspective by virtue of the fact we live in western society. My point has been proven by the nature of the replies themselves, they are addressing the topic from a christian/western perspective, and not from an Islamic perspective.

If the aim itself is to look for specific events or scenarios, coups or battles, lead in the drinking water, video games or fast food, would it be implausible that such specific events/activities themselves was a faulty supposition?

Lots of things are kicked around. Lots of scholars have attempted to answer this same question. But the fact remains that if its intellectual base was as robust and durable (as compared to ___?___ culture), it would have survived and thrived because discovery and technology almost invariably lead to more discovery and technology. These are the wheels that drive themselves.

Please forgive the coincidence of this quote, but it comes to mind

"You are clever man, friend John; you reason well, and your wit is bold; but you are too prejudiced. You do not let your eyes see nor your ears hear, and that which is outside your daily life is not of account to you. Ah, it is the fault of our science that it wants to explain all; and if it explain not, then it says there is nothing to explain."

PartsAndTechnical wrote:Ah, but thats just it....virtually everyone here is arguing from a christian/western perspective by virtue of the fact we live in western society.

I disagree entirely. So far, you and Effingham have been two of the only posters that obviously drew a Christian/Western slant into your posts. Based on a majority of the posts made in this thread so far, it would be hard to tell whether these people were located in Iran or Michigan because they didn't allow themselves to immediately present comparisons to western philosophy, religion or social ideology in their responses. You're the one lecturing about how important it is to remove ourselves from the western mentality while simultaneously being one of the only ones at fault for not doing so. Read the thread.

And in any case, the original question should not necessitate either perspective being incorporated or denied. The poster asked why technology slowed to a halt at a certain period in late Medieval history in the Islamic world. Using completely objective understanding of historical trends in technology and the mores of Islamic society it is possible to understand the reasons behind the failure of further advancement. By reviewing the slowing pace of technology and correctly identifying the societal boundaries that were being pushed by those who participated in technological advancement and the mentality that arose in their wake, an answer will be had. That can be done entirely without worrying about where you are and what you believe. It's just good history.

-Gerhard

Ziad wrote:I dunno. If you used a simplified version Geometric Kufic calligraphy, it would have been easier to read and to print with block printing than what they have now.

Here's a sample alphabet:


Since the diacriticals could be omitted completely, it could be done.


Z

Interestingly enough, Kufic calligraphy was the script of choice in the early amulets. Whether this is a choice based on ease of use or indicative of area of origin is up for debate.

For the record, I asked the moderators to take a look at this thread because I felt it had strayed iredeemably into modern politics/religion. I'm certainly open to discussing the idea that in the period under discussion Islam was a millstone about the neck of the scientific community. But if we are going to do so I would demand that cite specific examples rather than painting with a broad brush. I have no desire to go back to the Politics section of the Archive.

Russ was able to make that exact argument by advancing a reference. If you read the short article he cited you will find a well-written piece that makes exactly such a case. Though it is not the author's stated intent, his article clearly implies that scientific knowledge flourished despite Islam, not because of it. And the author is able to make this argument in a non-confrontational manner (because he's a scholar and not throwing together a post on a internet forum )

I disagree a bit with your characterization of the article, Jester. I think he means that such learning happened orthogonally to the religious studies, not "in spite of it." (And the characterization of the madrasas backs this up -- if it were "in spite of," such studies would have been banned, not secondary/optional/personal).

The author points out that, to use contemporary western academic terms, natural philosopy was an "elective." Wanna take a couple semesters of physics enroute to your degree? Sure, it's not going to affect your career much, but if you like it, why not! Granted, there were a lot of folks noisily saying that revelation is all that's worth studying, and science = the bad. But then again, we have that right now with the mental midgets trying to remove the study of evolution from school curriculae.

Did some guys take those electives and do great things with it? Yeah. But once your primary center of learning (thus allowing the specialization for these guys to flourish) gets burnt to the ground, and the rest of your region is overrun with really serious conflicts (like a front-and-center war with the Ilkhanids -- I mean, seriously. Batu's campaign was just a raid, and look what it did to Central Europe), decline is not surprising at all.

Obviously I take away a different understanding of the article. I'm quite willing to modify my statement, though. I agree that saying that science progressed despite Islam is too strong. As you point out, not all Islamic scholars were opposed to scientific study.

I am having trouble putting my next thought into words. I cut it out of my last post because I couldn't frame it precisely and it started to read like the sort of political discussion I'd like to avoid. Let me try again to very generally convey this thought I have brewing in my head.

It seems to me that the interconnectedness of Islam and Politics (which the author addresses) creates a situation in which science can only flourish in the gaps. When the polity is expanding, rulers are less concerned with appealing to religious validation of their tenure and can allow greater freedoms (they almost have to allow the freedoms because they are preoccupied with external affairs). In this situation, science flourishes due to the lack of attention and the influx of foreign treasure and ideas. When the state stops expanding, however, attention returns to the center and those freedoms are cracked down on. Science can still flourish in this environment, but only in fits and starts and in widely separated instances. When the state begins to contract or disintegrate, science suffers. Leaders appeal to religious validation of their rule and this almost inevitably gives fundamentalists greater power in society.

Yeah, still not quite clear enough. I'll work on it.

But when I look at the problem in this fashion, I can see a possible answer. Some of the ramifications are interesting, but probably better suited for a dicussion in politics, unfortunately.

Some of it. At the same time, you've also got previous generations saying "screw revelation, we've got forebrains and can use those to understand God," a position which would have vaporized on contact in any major western academic setting through the 17th or 18th century (just look at all the backflips Descartes had to go through, for instance).

Russ Mitchell wrote:The author points out that, to use contemporary western academic terms, natural philosopy was an "elective." Wanna take a couple semesters of physics enroute to your degree? Sure, it's not going to affect your career much, but if you like it, why not! Granted, there were a lot of folks noisily saying that revelation is all that's worth studying, and science = the bad. But then again, we have that right now with the mental midgets trying to remove the study of evolution from school curriculae.

Remove? HAHAHAHAHAHA, sorry, but that's funny in a sad way. Public Schools in NC(this part of it anyways) barely have any notion of evolution, plate tectonics, et al. I mean I could differentiate spiritual and scientific all through secondary school, but the first class I had that made no notion of creation was Honors Geology my freshman year of COLLEGE. And even then, there were a few folks that dropped out when they learned the class would focus on scientific evidence, and not on a certain book.

The battle here isn't getting evolution out of schools, it's keeping it out. one wonders why we've fallen behind in international academics...

I went to high school in NC and you don't know what you are talking about.

Astaroth wrote:I went to high school in NC and you don't know what you are talking about.

I don't? Sorry, but Rowan County Schools, as of 2008, was still avoiding any use of those terms, despite what the teachers thought. My earth science teacher would NOT touch plate tectonics in any form(she didn't even accept it as a rational thought), and my Biology and Zoology teachers respectively would not go into evolution. I knew the latter personally, knew their views weren't this, but all in the same avoided any mention of Mr. Darwin, aside from it wouldn't be on any tests.

I'm not reaching up my ass for a debate, maybe it's different where you were, but I know for a fact 3 years ago this wasn't going on. I'm pretty sure I know what I'm talking about here, considering I lived it not all that long ago.

EDIT: to clarify, they wouldn't go near macro-evolution. Both touched on micro-evolution, with zoology we went pretty in depth, but macro-evolution wasn't taught. not the case in college, but certainly the case in HS.

So you are what 19 or 20 years old? So alot of this nonsense you have been spouting is just you talking out your ass. Sorry but that is what I am hearing from you.

If your location is correct you live just a few miles outside the research triangle one of the leading areas of scientific research in the country. Do you really believe that the schools that teach the children of those people are really that backward? I went to a public high school in the Western part of the state much less progressive than the area where you live and we certainly did not ignore evolution in fact I took genetics class as an elective. Our Humanity program started with reading parts of the Descent of Man and I even took Science Fiction as literature as an English elective. I know for a fact things have not changed that much over the years my sister in law is a school speech therapist and one of my best friends teaches in NC. I believe your youthful rebelliousness may be clouding your judgement about what is going on, that or you are in a really weird school and I doubt they are that backwards as what you describe goes against what I know about the State's educational mandate.

http://www.ncpublicschools.org/curriculum/science/

North Carolina students can achieve scientific literacy through an instructional program based on the science component of the Standard Course of Study for Science. The SCS is designed to merge unifying concepts of science, strands, content goals, and objectives.

These unifying concepts are:

Systems, Order and Organization
Evidence, Models, and Explanation
Constancy, Change, and Measurement
Evolution and Equilibrium
Form and Function

Gents... kinda OT, right?

Rebellious and talking out of my ass, I don't see why I would do either. You're right, if either were the case, but they aren't. I don't know quite how to explain or articulate what I said in any simpler fashion.

You're mistaken as to how close to the research triangle I live. The triangle is the Raleigh-Durham Area, and the culture in that area is FAR different than where I live. I'm about 2 hours from that region, just so you know. I mean they couldn't be more different in ideology.

If you're really bent on dismissing what I said as childish banter I'm fine with it. Like I said I'm not trying to spark some debate, I'm merely posting my experiences in High School. I had a terrific group of teachers, I couldn't have asked for better. I may be young and ignorant to a lot of things, but I can remember our teachers skirting Darwinism, very clearly.

Well, OK, a few things to respond to.

Astaroth: 1) your language strikes me very unnecessarily hostile and crude. Andrew was being perfectly reasonable in tone and your reply was uncouth, to say the least. You attack his age as if it were relevant, you call his words nonsense and suggest that he was "talking out [his] ass." Civility, please? 2) On what grounds are you seriously deriding his experience? He isn't saying that he was talking to the ghost of John Wayne or that aliens took his mom; why not just accept his experience as valid and entirely probable?

With regards to the larger topic at hand, especially with P&T's points: I think we would all be perfectly naive to underestimate the power our modern perspectives have on this issue. This is includes our prevailing Eurocentric bias and our own personal political and religious ideologies. Not only will these absolutely affect our ability to maintain objectivity, but they also prevent us from wholly viewing this discussion from a Muslim perspective. Unless you're a Muslim, you cannot possibly fathom how one might look at OP's original question, or how to respond thereto. This, I think, was Parts and Technical's point; not to bring up politics for its own sake, but to make mention of the fact that we must be conscientious of our own biases and perspectives at play when we begin analyzing cultures. This is doubly true when discussing a hot-button topic like Islam.

Furthermore, it is silly to try and downplay the role of politics in history; history is in some regard indeed the study of past politics. On the Archive we have built this arbitrary (but somewhat useful) wall around political issues because they are indeed highly charged. However, that wall must necessarily be breached when they come to bear on historical issues which brought us here in the first place. We don't get to walk on egg shells because people might get emotional; its going to happen. But in the interest of learning, we must learn to accept that these political issues will necessitate discussion and behave with virtue and respect rather than try to sweep it under the rug when it gets a bit too toasty in here for some peoples' sentiments. Yeah, we're talking politics, but not for its own sake - its being discussed within the highly relevant context of history. Asking the moderators to watch this thread strikes me as... well just kinda dumb, for lack of a more articulate way of putting it.

When a person has made claims that are not supportable by facts which this youth has done at least twice in this thread then yes he deserves to be called out on that. His "experience" not withstanding I don't know a high school aged person who has good things to say about their school and this is often not a perception of reality but a construct of their youth. The phenomenon is similar to a child saying they hate their parents but later in life realizing how wrong they were. Plus I take exception to his allegations of educational misconduct in a state where I know the things he suggest go against not only the philosophy of the educational system but also the standard curriculum. His suggestion is that the the educational system is somehow retarded by religious attitudes and he is mistaken.

Fascinating discussion. For the Political Forum.

How could this have been relevant to the discussion at hand? Supporting evidence. Sorry, but personal experience is anecdotal. Opinion. Now, if the alleged shortcomings of the educational system were documented, that would have been interesting. And if the shortcomings are widespread then evidence should be easy to provide. And only if the shortcomings are widespread does it become relevant. One data point can be an anomaly. Multiple data points establish a trend.

I'm sorry I started this discussion here.

Unless you're a Muslim, you cannot possibly fathom how one might look at OP's original question, or how to respond thereto.

Bullshit. Save the pontificating for when you've mastered basic historical method. There are numerous means by which any competent scholar could approach this problem. However, they involve reading and providing evidence, rather than simply talking out of your ass, which unfortunately has characterized most of the response thus far.

Gerhard von Liebau wrote:

PartsAndTechnical wrote:Ah, but thats just it....virtually everyone here is arguing from a christian/western perspective by virtue of the fact we live in western society.

I disagree entirely. So far, you and Effingham have been two of the only posters that obviously drew a Christian/Western slant into your posts. Based on a majority of the posts made in this thread so far, it would be hard to tell whether these people were located in Iran or Michigan because they didn't allow themselves to immediately present comparisons to western philosophy, religion or social ideology in their responses. You're the one lecturing about how important it is to remove ourselves from the western mentality while simultaneously being one of the only ones at fault for not doing so. Read the thread.

And in any case, the original question should not necessitate either perspective being incorporated or denied. The poster asked why technology slowed to a halt at a certain period in late Medieval history in the Islamic world. Using completely objective understanding of historical trends in technology and the mores of Islamic society it is possible to understand the reasons behind the failure of further advancement. By reviewing the slowing pace of technology and correctly identifying the societal boundaries that were being pushed by those who participated in technological advancement and the mentality that arose in their wake, an answer will be had. That can be done entirely without worrying about where you are and what you believe. It's just good history.

-Gerhard

Again, with all due respect, your argument in return essentially underscores my point.

I know you have an small axe against Christianity Gerhard because youve said as much to me, but I was not plugging Christianity---on the contrary, I was trying to explain that there are different approaches in how cultures think and those approaches can have huge ramifications on what the culture expects of itself. I remember mentioning the series, "The Day the Universe Changed" by James Burke as an excellent discussion on the on the nature of reasoning, how its evolved and how it differs based on culture, technological change etc.

For example, if you were born in a culture that had already had a time machine for centuries, your concepts of history and permanence of history would probably be very loose. If you were born in a culture that lived on an island...you might not necessarily even have a term for the human race or races or even for the concept of cultures or even an ounce of thought to comparative discussions because you might not have a clue that OTHER people existed. So perspective IS everything here.


The other issue here is that there is a supposition, an assumption that Islam had created a high culture.

The problem is two fold.

What do we define as high culture? Whats the starting point? Whats the comparison of low culture?

And what do we define the STATE of Islamic technology actually was in the 13th century? --to then declare that it began go decline?

This discussion has achieved nothing, not really, because there is no starting definition of what Islamic culture had achieved by that period. Most things cited can be attributed to earlier or contemporary cultures. So what was it that truly made Islamic culture so advanced? And by what standard?

And, before assigning 'values' to that culture (eg high, glorious, superior...barbaric, old testament-like, cruel) we have to know what the state of that culture was insofar as its acceptance of novel or foreign technology was, and how it compared to OTHER cultures and their technology......and that is where the invariably christian/western mindset comes in --that we, having grown up in christian/western culture cannot really shake because its hard wired, ingrained in us....its how we were taught to think and compare. We have or had achieved "such and so"....therefore we make assumptions that another culture thinks as we do, and thus wanted the same things as we did, and thus was as comparable or higher in technological achievement.

I wont say Europe was necessarily a bastion of hippie egg-heads, but the more Ive learned about Medieval culture, the more Ive realized it was not nearly as barbaric as its been described. I feel the same way about several medieval African and Asian civilizations which, by most accounts were remarkably advanced. Yet even I have to admit, that the very notion of the word "advanced" implies advancements over something that is less advanced. So we are throwing around notions of advanced, or high technology or high culture or superior (ad naseum) without having much to prove that it was high culture, let alone what the STATE of 13th century Islamic culture was to begin with to then assume that it began to slide back (how do we know it was advanced and what is the measure of advanced?) .....which brings me back to an earlier point, that cultures have expectations, folkways and morays that can focus, strain, or weed out things it wants and things it does not want. Did Islam want to become advanced....or is this notion a product of our comparative "all cultures are essential the same" mindset. (enter 1960s/1970s approaches as a byproduct of the coldwar, vietnam, anti-imperial establishment thinking)

The assumption that Islam wanted ever increasing high technology (whether its true or not) is a faulty starting point*. And those tenets and founding philosophies of a culture, have a lot to do with what it achieves or does not achieve.


(*To that end, we have barely touched on is that culture influences technology and technology influences culture; its a cycle.)

I have as big of an axe to grind with any religion, Mr. Young. That's definitely not part of the issue here. I think you have an entirely different perspective about how to go about solving these problems, and nothing I can say would sway you to see this situation the way I do. There are often different means to reach many different ends when it comes to surveying the past - it's what keeps history alive and historians debating hidden elements of historical phenomena. Read Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs & Steel or Victor Davis Hanson's Carnage and Culture to see two extremely different perspectives on how the Western World rose to domination in the modern era based on historical precedence dating back millennia. Who's right? Is there a right? Fundamental differences in how those two men are hardwired created extremely difference perceptions of history, but no one can say that either of them is wrong.

Between you and me, I think that's what's happening here. So I'll bow out. Cheers, sir.

-Gregory

Astaroth wrote:When a person has made claims that are not supportable by facts which this youth has done at least twice in this thread then yes he deserves to be called out on that. His "experience" not withstanding I don't know a high school aged person who has good things to say about their school and this is often not a perception of reality but a construct of their youth. The phenomenon is similar to a child saying they hate their parents but later in life realizing how wrong they were. Plus I take exception to his allegations of educational misconduct in a state where I know the things he suggest go against not only the philosophy of the educational system but also the standard curriculum. His suggestion is that the the educational system is somehow retarded by religious attitudes and he is mistaken.

Almost this entire post is fallacious and full of ad Hominem abuse and generalizations about cultural constructs. I'm 22 years old, and I loved my high school, and I've gone to three colleges and am obsessed with my education. I also love my parents and rush home over breaks, and appreciated them a lot during my childhood because they were awesome. Most of my friends and acquaintances are the same in one way or the other, and appreciation is not hard to come by. On the same note, neither is rational and objective understanding of the concepts of education and parenthood. Even if a person grew up in a shitty situation, their perspective need not be muddied by the circumstances of their youth.

Andrew got out of high school what, two or three years ago? He's currently attending college from my understanding of his posts and is interested in culture and society. Based on these bits of information, I would confidently suggest that he probably has a reasonable understanding from first-hand experience of how typical high school curriculum works in the area where he was recently educated. Based on what little I can discern of his personality and character from his posts in this online forum, and the fact that I know absolutely nothing about his past, I don't think it is appropriate to make any comment regarding his perception of educational institutions. Do you know him, Astaroth?

You're 44, right? Did you recently graduate from high school? Do you work in the high school he attended, or in any of the surrounding districts? Do you sit around researching their standards and the particulars of the teachers who hold class in these schools? What sort of experience or evidence do you have to the contrary of what he's saying? I've only seen a bunch of bashing and a link to a North Carolina Public School website listing extremely general standards of educational expectations. The variety of methods, levels of effectiveness and even understanding of these standards can vary wildly from school to school. You also mention the research facilities located nearby. So? Are they all local North Carolina researchers packed into the labs? Do you have any evidence to suggest that the existence of such a region of flourishing scientific research affects the way that high school teachers in North Carolina teach or their personal biases regarding Darwinism, plate tectonics and various other scientific matters that are often debated religiously or culturally?

Between those two examples, I think that's the worst evidence you could possibly pull up for a debate about the specific and typical perspective of science teachers operating in a particular area of NC. It was entirely unrelated to the status of the public school system in any region of the state.

-Gregory

Wow another clueless child trying to tell me the world is something it isn't. I actually have underwear older than you kid. When you are 30 come back and speak to me otherwise your opinions are about as useful as tits on a boarhog.

The irony is what we have here are two children droning on about the greatness of Islam while both have major hard-ons against the Christian West. I guess maybe the schools they went to really were horrible at teaching (just not in the way they suggest).

Guys we can drop it, seriously it's another derailment, and it's going to go in circles. I have no tangible proof, only my reflection of school. I never hated high School, in fact except for the getting up early part(HAHA), I really enjoyed High School, ESPECIALLY my senior year. Don't get me wrong I was ready to get out, but at no point did the word hate or even dislike come to mind. So from here on, it's going to be pointless banter and name calling, which is......childish.

I appreciate everyone standing up for me, and I appreciate Mr. Eltz-Kempenich for noticing I was trying to prevent another flare-up. The last thing I need is for people around here to think I enjoy starting flame wars, and have a penchant for mischief.

I can understand that when you graduated out of a school system, then some "young'n" comes around and says that institution is still not up to snuff. But I cannot think of any rational reason I would say this, unless I was striving for attention, or I had actually experienced. I tried to cool the thread, and I sent Mr. Astaroth a Private message if he wanted to continue it there and save this poor thread. Not the case, and since I plan on this being the last little bit of argument, I'll post some things about my area, to try to paint a better picture.

I live in Rowan County, NC. It's about an hour north of Charlotte, an hour south of Winston-Salem, and about 2 hours from Raleigh-Durham. The area I live in could be described as "rural," as the neighboring towns have populations under 5,000. I live close to Salisbury NC(10 miles or so), which is a small city. How you got I'm a few miles from the research center, I'll never know. I'm nowhere close. From where I stand, it would be like saying the a guy living in Amish country would have the same cultural background as your typical Philidelphian. Actually those two are closer than I am to Raleigh.

Astaroth wrote:Wow another clueless child trying to tell me the world is something it isn't. I actually have underwear older than you kid. When you are 30 come back and speak to me otherwise your opinions are about as useful as tits on a boarhog.

The irony is what we have here are two children droning on about the greatness of Islam while both have major hard-ons against the Christian West. I guess maybe the schools they went to really were horrible at teaching (just not in the way they suggest).

Haha. Clueless child? Let's get boastful here, I'm in the mood. I have a 3.8 GPA at one of the best public universities in California and am about to get a Bachelor's Degree in Medieval European History. I graduated near top in my HS class with the highest SAT score the school had seen in years, barring my best friend. I've worked every summer since I was 10 in packing houses and pruning vineyards, lived in San Francisco for a year, been virtually homeless for over a month, traveled across the United States and in Europe and know a lot of shit about the current political, social and religious circumstances in the wide world. I'm agnostic, and have a particular passion for studying the evolution of world religion in the Near East, the Holy Roman Church, the Byzantine Orthodox Church and Eastern Chinese Tiandai Buddhism. So far, judging from your posts, all I know about you is that you're an asshole. Tell me about yourself, don't be shy. I'm interested to see how clueless I must be compared to your obvious mental and experience-based credibilty.

-Gregory

It does bring up an interesting point though.. and one we've all run across at one point or another.

Here's an example. My "history" books in school clearly stated that Knights in full plate were so heavy they had to be lifted on their horse with a crane (even had an illustration!) and that the way to fight a Knight was to take out his horse, as he could barely move in that armour once he was unhorsed, and could not POSSIBLY get up if he fell over.

Now, _we_ all know that's not true. But I'm sure I can STILL find you textbooks in use that state it as impirical fact.

What else might textbooks tell us, that scrutiny of the historical record might not? Perhaps, that at one point, Islam was the greatest center of learning and culture in the world? Very few walk today to refute it. Did they translate everything into arabic? Of course. They didn't read latin. .

Did they do it because they were more learned or intelligent than anyone else? Good question. But MOST societies went through a rise and fall and rise again period. There's a story out there of a Chinese emperor giving a clock to some emissary. A few hundred(?) years later, descendant of ruler who got clock wants to return ancient and venerated clock to current chinese leader.. gets there, leader has never SEEN a clock, let alone heard of one.. because the empire had collapsed, and slid backwards.

I will BET you can find all those great advances in Math, Literature, Science, etc, _somewhere else_ before they got collated and compartmentalized by the Turkish Empire. Because that's what they did. They learned well from the (translated) examples of Philip and Alexander.

Guys, I'm not trying to take anything away from them. But I've seen enough articles and books on the subject to think that the ideal of "The greatest empire and most learned ever" moniker that a lot of texts lay on them, might be closer to our Knight with a winch up his ass, or the Victorian ideals of WHAT CHIVALRY REALLY WAS, than truth.

Gerhard von Liebau wrote:

Astaroth wrote:Wow another clueless child trying to tell me the world is something it isn't. I actually have underwear older than you kid. When you are 30 come back and speak to me otherwise your opinions are about as useful as tits on a boarhog.

The irony is what we have here are two children droning on about the greatness of Islam while both have major hard-ons against the Christian West. I guess maybe the schools they went to really were horrible at teaching (just not in the way they suggest).

Haha. Clueless child? Let's get boastful here, I'm in the mood. I have a 3.8 GPA at one of the best public universities in California and am about to get a Bachelor's Degree in Medieval European History. I graduated near top in my HS class with the highest SAT score the school had seen in years, barring my best friend. I've worked every summer since I was 10 in packing houses and pruning vineyards, lived in San Francisco for a year, been virtually homeless for over a month, traveled across the United States and in Europe and know a lot of shit about the current political, social and religious circumstances in the wide world. I'm agnostic, and have a particular passion for studying the evolution of world religion in the Near East, the Holy Roman Church, the Byzantine Orthodox Church and Eastern Chinese Tiandai Buddhism. So far, judging from your posts, all I know about you is that you're an asshole. Tell me about yourself, don't be shy. I'm interested to see how clueless I must be compared to your obvious mental and experience-based credibilty.

-Gregory

So what you are telling me is that you are an educated moron?

Some people.

Gerhard von Liebau wrote:Some people.

Have never seen anything but the inside of academia, and are in for a very, very rude awakening when the real world pimpslaps the taste out of their mouths.

My world is academia. I'm lining up for graduate school as we speak, and will be a professor before I'm 30, sitting comfortably in my ivory tower. That's the way I want it, and that's my world. Some people knock at the doors of academia wondering what it is we do up here, it seems. That's just the way perspective works. Not to mention, I also work every summer on the farm surrounded by illegal immigrants, have suffered major loss in my family and lived through extremely hard personal economic situations. I don't know how that comes down to being academia. I've had to feed the family while my parents were up shit creek back when I was a teenager.

-Gerhard

Those that can, do. Those that can't....

Gerhard von Liebau wrote:Some people.

Like me have more life experience and more education and have traveled further than you have. When you get your Phd and have worked in the real world for twenty years come back and talk to me. Until then I will continue to dismiss your opinions.

Astaroth wrote:

Gerhard von Liebau wrote:Some people.

Like me have more life experience and more education and have traveled further than you have. When you get your Phd and have worked in the real world for twenty years come back and talk to me. Until then I will continue to dismiss your opinions.

No one with a PhD talks like you do. You'd be able to carry out a successful debate regarding the original premise of your posts rather than continue to slander other forum members if you had any more education than a log.

(EDIT: See, now this is easy. Why am I in school? I can just talk like I'm an idiot and say "fuck you!" to everyone who disagrees with me and it works like a charm.)