4 ms·
This is a very specific, narrow interpretation of the dark ages. It is not a good term to use in any circumstance, which the article illustrates well. Secondly
by drb91 7y ago
This is a very specific, narrow interpretation of the dark ages. It is not a good term to use in any circumstance, which the article illustrates well.
Secondly, in the event of societal collapse, I'm not exactly looking for a great work of art. I image we lost far more texts through preventable destruction and lack of preservation than we lost novel texts written during the post-roman european collapse. I think the quote illustrates a meaningful parallel.
> But the loss of something that we know existed (and can even look at photographs of!) is very different than destruction so total that it even obliterates the possibility of remembrance.
Categorically different maybe, but consequentially equivalent. I can rattle off a ton of lost texts, but that's mostly meaningless and these works hold virtually no cultural value compared to works we can actually read and engage with.
- admax88q 7y ago> but that's mostly meaningless and these works hold virtually no cultural value compared to works we can actually read and engage with. You've basically defined away the problem. If its lost then we can't read and engage with it and therefore has no cultural value. I mean sure, things we don't have by definition can't contribute to culture today. But that is a useless tautology when talking about lost works.
- chc 7y agoI think you've misinterpreted their point. They were pointing out that whether or not we know the thing existed doesn't change the fact that we don't have it, and it's the fact that we don't have it that prevents it from contributing to culture today.
- drb91 7y agoMy point is that it’s the existing that contributes to culture, not knowledge that something once existed.