I think putting politics up with religion and philosophy is wrong…politics once was included in philosophy anyway…
I was just wondering today…
Pockets of human society started in a few places simultanously. First probably in the middle east about 12000 yrs back , with very slow progress , then around 6000 yrs back in europe, china and india…Out of these places , information gathering and analysis , followed slightly different paths..
Middle east and India developed along religious lines..( Religion= Sociology+spirituality) and europe developed more along philosophical lines ( Philosophy in the begining comprised of what we call science today i.e physics, politics and sociology, more logic based then eastern thinking.
Any ideas folks , about the difference in thoughts…
I think political, religious and philosophical thoughts developed in different civilizations, simultaneously, may be, but the progress of integration of these thoughts was very slow (depending on means of communication in that era). These thoughts, found a very fertile ground, known as the civilization Crescent*, an area, which, for the last 15,000 years have been the center for the trade routes linking most of the civilizations of the world. So, this place became the ground zero for the ultimate knowledge warfare. The modern Religion, Philosophy and politics are the brainchild of all the integration that happened in that place. From codes of Hamaborabi to Greek Republic, from one god to Atheism. In my opinion the key word is integration. It happened then, it’s going on today.
Civilization Crescent*= Mesopotamia in east, to the west of river Nile, to mountains of Taurus in
north and before the desert starts in south.
[This message has been edited by MiniMe (edited May 30, 2000).]
[quote]
Originally posted by Nova:
**
Pockets of human society started in a few places simultanously. First probably in the middle east about 12000 yrs back , with very slow progress , then around 6000 yrs back in europe, china and india....**
[/quote]
first of all. all the habshees will be on your case since they contend that civilization started from africa..a continent you failed to name..i am kinda kidding but kinda serious here.
on the fully serious note, the differences you suggest..were they really in place all along? If we look at the dark ages in europe and the medieval times, it may indicate otherwise. Indo-china and the arab world contributed a lot to this world by setting solid foundations in the establishment of sciences.
It is a shame that the lead slipped away from our region and people from other regions made use of it and became so far ahead of us.
question is, why did the lead slip away?
why did the lead slip away?
Different civilization lead the human race in different times, the center never remains the same, from Nile to Masopotamia to China to greek to Arabs and if I am right at this time its the America. May be in the next 50 to 100 years it would be somewhere else...
Nobody lets it down...it goes down
mini and fraudia....
I think I didnt word it right...What I wanted your opinion on is teh difference in teh way of thinking i.e More logic/observation based thinking of europeans, vs more spiritual based thinking of east...The aim is to see if the reasons that were prevalent then are still at work today or not....Would that in any way expain teh individual based thinking of westerers vs teh community based thinking of easterners...
Fraudia,
Homo erectus strted in africa, but it wasnt till much later , and in other places that civilization developed ...africas climate may not have been suitable for early human settlements..
Two major triumphs of civilization in the world are Jazz music and Basketball. Who can deny African contribution in them. (Not to mention running hundred meters in record time)
I’ve always been so impressed by the Greek, Roman, Arab, & India subcontinent history.
diff. reasons for each region na.
in partiuclar,
Greek – is rich for the mathematical-philosophies those dudes came up
Roman – is rich for beginning the Roman Law which is still, amazingly, applied today
it’s funny how politics fell into place with Greek’s Philosophy & Roman’s Law. Not to mention, how they for the countries today to follow it.
just weird how India etc. leaned towards Religion, and Europe/West towards Sciences.
overall, i mean.
Europe TRIED to strictly follow its country with the Catholic church <<wheww..was England ever tough on some of it’s catholic rules during shakespeare’s time…>>. But eventually, somehow, the religion flavour was lost in all of its ppl & their political ppl.
why? i dunno, i’m stumped.
http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/confused.gif
dont’ get mad at me for saying this…
but notice Mid-east & India’s civilization had A LOT of ethics, & truly believed in ‘em, & based it all “religiously” in every aspect. no wonder Asia exceled to have sooo many religions comapred to the West.
speaking of the West…
also notice how the West sorta, kinda didn’t apply their faith’s ethics <<ie. majority chrisitianity, catholic>> as much. & so they kinda lost the ethics’ beliefs they once had(i think?). they wanted to know more facts then spirits. Sciences amazed them.. & they exceled in that field more…
i dunno nova. this is a hard topic you chose! 
iv’e been stumped on it for a few days now; believe it or not, i even did some extra free-time reading which i think didnt’ help…
[This message has been edited by kohal (edited June 02, 2000).]
Kohal baji,
Its neat to see ppl, thinking and putting in effort to ..err...know..
Got stumped..hmmm...why dont you just ask..I have some ideas regarding this, but didnt want to put em down...purpose of the post was to stinulate thinking , not to put out my opinion...But would gladly do if you would want me to.
Abb aap sai sirf Umar maiN chotta hooN...aqaal mai nahein....:)
Middle east and India developed along religious lines..( Religion= Sociology+spirituality) and europe developed more along philosophical lines ( Philosophy in the begining comprised of what we call science today i.e physics, politics and sociology, more logic based then eastern thinking.
Any ideas folks , about the difference in thoughts...<<
Here is my take on this.... I think this was due to living condition, on Indian subcontinent warm weather plenty of food comparative less struggle to survive under all these conditions there was time to lay back and wonder about the natural occurances and purpose of life as all the immediate needs were met. Under these conditions it was easy to cooperate.
Whereas in cold climates (Europe) it was comparatively harsh weather comparatively less fertile land...lot more struggle to survive propelled individual into solving the laws of nature to make life easy. The pressure of survival made human being more individualistic.
[This message has been edited by Rani (edited June 03, 2000).]
.
[This message has been edited by CM (edited June 05, 2002).]