4 ms·

I think your take on the early middle ages has been abstracted through the lenses of modernity, drama, and materialism. There were so many different arrangemen

I think your take on the early middle ages has been abstracted through the lenses of modernity, drama, and materialism. There were so many different arrangements, cultures, and value systems in play at that time, and obviously some of those elements came into conflict with each other, but to extrapolate that into a summary of the entire age is a mistake.

lsc 9y ago
I suppose it would be... difficult for me to see anything except through the lens of materialism. But I think that's true of most people; the number of people who don't see the world in a fundamentally physicalist way is... shrinking. (This is controversial; the religious in my country have been flexing their muscles, and there is open debate as to if this indicates a resurgence of belief, or just the religious seeing the majority slip from their hands thrashing to turn back the clock while they still have the strength. I personally believe the latter, but I don't have evidence that is any more solid than anyone else.) I do think I would be a better person if I was better able to understand how the religious people saw the world... but it's just not something I've been able to do. It's very difficult, really, for someone who doesn't believe faith is good in and of itself to understand people who do. I read on the subject; the most sympathetic and relatable portrayal I've found so far is Jeung's "Answer to Job" But... while it's fair to criticize me for not really understanding spirituality, If you are arguing that the dark ages were not dark for, uh, metaphysical reasons, I think our values are so different that we can't really have a meaningful debate.
- jstewartmobile 9y ago
  There is some ambiguity to what the complement of materialism actually is, but I'm fairly sure religion isn't it. I think we can all come up with examples of people who accepted reduced material circumstances in service of a higher goal, and many of those people were not believers in anything other than their own personal value systems. The hazy impression I get of that era is a breakdown of the Roman imperium's refined monoculture into a multitude of unrefined variations. On many levels, I like that. By ceaselessly optimizing, refining, and centralizing without regard to intrinsic human needs, we're really just charging head first into entropy. Think the Italian "slow life" vs NYC...
  - lsc 9y ago
    Materialism is well-defined and means something in philosophy[1] - if you are using it in the sense of "greed" well, that's a different sort of thing entirely. My own experiences and assumptions all point to 'diminishing marginal value' when it comes to all physical goods - I'll do a lot if it means that me and mine don't starve. I'll do a lot less to move up from a Toyota to a Lexus. (don't get me wrong, If I've gotta drive, I'll take the Lexus... but not if it means I have less reading time.) Extrapolating backwards from that, my assumption is that everyone in the pre-modern era; everyone from a time where more people suffered from eating not enough than eating too much would be a lot more concerned with obtaining goods (well, food, shelter and the tools to obtain those things in the future) than I am now. So from that point of view, I'd have a distorted view of the dark ages (and, for that matter, Rome and the whole world before the 'green revolution' in the late '60s) simply because I've never experienced anything like real hunger or want. I mean, sure, I've wanted things, but every time you ask me to do something for money? My question is this: Would I rather do that thing you want me to do for the money you are offering? Or would I prefer to stay at home and read classic works from project gutenberg? For me, a lot of how I've looked at work and the how much time to trade for it has been that view that I really don't have to save that much money to live a pretty comfortable life without working. (Now, I've made some massive mistakes in how to go about doing that, but that's a different discussion. the idea that money in the bank is years I don't have to work to be comfortable is a constant) What I'm saying is that as modern people, I don't think we can comprehend the privation that pre-modern folks had. The amount of time and effort they needed to put in to gain even the most basic and essential of material goods. Also, my guess is that when you are in such a tenuous situation, people are going to work a lot harder than your "New York" example. (I like your example because New York is a place I'm considering moving... in part as a way to de-stress my life. Remove transit issues. Live within walking distance of my life.) [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism
    - jstewartmobile 9y ago
      For my purposes, which are not philosophically trained, anti-materialism would be when something so offends your soul (or your will in a more secular sense) that you would rather die than go along with it. I have known this feeling from when I didn't believe, so I know that it is real and possible. From what I've read of ancient Rome, I suspect I would have preferred a short life struggling against nature than a long one tolerating Romans. But again, value systems. That, and I'm not entirely sold that acquiring the knowledge of how not to starve or be eaten by animals requires an imperium or a state.

lsc 9y ago

I suppose it would be... difficult for me to see anything except through the lens of materialism. But I think that's true of most people; the number of people who don't see the world in a fundamentally physicalist way is... shrinking. (This is controversial; the religious in my country have been flexing their muscles, and there is open debate as to if this indicates a resurgence of belief, or just the religious seeing the majority slip from their hands thrashing to turn back the clock while they still have the strength. I personally believe the latter, but I don't have evidence that is any more solid than anyone else.) I do think I would be a better person if I was better able to understand how the religious people saw the world... but it's just not something I've been able to do. It's very difficult, really, for someone who doesn't believe faith is good in and of itself to understand people who do. I read on the subject; the most sympathetic and relatable portrayal I've found so far is Jeung's "Answer to Job" But... while it's fair to criticize me for not really understanding spirituality, If you are arguing that the dark ages were not dark for, uh, metaphysical reasons, I think our values are so different that we can't really have a meaningful debate.

jstewartmobile 9y ago
There is some ambiguity to what the complement of materialism actually is, but I'm fairly sure religion isn't it. I think we can all come up with examples of people who accepted reduced material circumstances in service of a higher goal, and many of those people were not believers in anything other than their own personal value systems. The hazy impression I get of that era is a breakdown of the Roman imperium's refined monoculture into a multitude of unrefined variations. On many levels, I like that. By ceaselessly optimizing, refining, and centralizing without regard to intrinsic human needs, we're really just charging head first into entropy. Think the Italian "slow life" vs NYC...
- lsc 9y ago
  Materialism is well-defined and means something in philosophy[1] - if you are using it in the sense of "greed" well, that's a different sort of thing entirely. My own experiences and assumptions all point to 'diminishing marginal value' when it comes to all physical goods - I'll do a lot if it means that me and mine don't starve. I'll do a lot less to move up from a Toyota to a Lexus. (don't get me wrong, If I've gotta drive, I'll take the Lexus... but not if it means I have less reading time.) Extrapolating backwards from that, my assumption is that everyone in the pre-modern era; everyone from a time where more people suffered from eating not enough than eating too much would be a lot more concerned with obtaining goods (well, food, shelter and the tools to obtain those things in the future) than I am now. So from that point of view, I'd have a distorted view of the dark ages (and, for that matter, Rome and the whole world before the 'green revolution' in the late '60s) simply because I've never experienced anything like real hunger or want. I mean, sure, I've wanted things, but every time you ask me to do something for money? My question is this: Would I rather do that thing you want me to do for the money you are offering? Or would I prefer to stay at home and read classic works from project gutenberg? For me, a lot of how I've looked at work and the how much time to trade for it has been that view that I really don't have to save that much money to live a pretty comfortable life without working. (Now, I've made some massive mistakes in how to go about doing that, but that's a different discussion. the idea that money in the bank is years I don't have to work to be comfortable is a constant) What I'm saying is that as modern people, I don't think we can comprehend the privation that pre-modern folks had. The amount of time and effort they needed to put in to gain even the most basic and essential of material goods. Also, my guess is that when you are in such a tenuous situation, people are going to work a lot harder than your "New York" example. (I like your example because New York is a place I'm considering moving... in part as a way to de-stress my life. Remove transit issues. Live within walking distance of my life.) [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism
  - jstewartmobile 9y ago
    For my purposes, which are not philosophically trained, anti-materialism would be when something so offends your soul (or your will in a more secular sense) that you would rather die than go along with it. I have known this feeling from when I didn't believe, so I know that it is real and possible. From what I've read of ancient Rome, I suspect I would have preferred a short life struggling against nature than a long one tolerating Romans. But again, value systems. That, and I'm not entirely sold that acquiring the knowledge of how not to starve or be eaten by animals requires an imperium or a state.