4 ms·
The problem with theorizing about such things is that, being untestable, it's very hard to distinguish between our own narrative biases and objectivity. Maybe
by netcan 6y ago
The problem with theorizing about such things is that, being untestable, it's very hard to distinguish between our own narrative biases and objectivity.
Maybe the golden age was a byproduct of imperialism. Not many naked imperialists out there anymore, but the arguments are easy enough to make. The US, The USSR... both with some stunning scientific achievements (eg nuclear physics, space travel, physics) achievements during their most imperial, post-war years. The British. The Dutch. The Chinese. The Mongol empire(s) were pretty intellectually advanced.
Maybe it was multiculturalism. Circa 8-13th centuries, most muslim countries were pretty diverse. They had muslim leadership, but the plurality was still Christian, Zoroastrian and such.
Maybe it was capitalism. Muslims were traders, especially relative to medieval Christendom.
Maybe it was societal youth. Ibn Khaldun^, IMO greatest of the arab (and ethnically arab) golden age scholars, had a theories parsimonious with this.
Maybe it was "the flame of western civilization." As the article states, they did inherit the post Byzantine world of Greek culture which passed through roman hands from the Greeks. The Greeks themselves inherited it from the Persians, so maybe it's the flame of Persian civilization, or even back to Sumerians if you like your narratives grand.
Maybe religion. Quranic culture requires literacy, and a theological education was common to nearly all of those great scholars.
Maybe it was conquest. The national confidence of a conquering nation.
I don't see a way to pick one idea from another. History is not deterministic. We can reflect though, that Ibn Khaldun is the most noteworthy originator of the (now very western) idea that history does have a logic of this kind.
^Genuinely a forerunner to Smith, Marx & such. A lot of Scottish enlightenment may have been catalyzed by the translation of his "Muqdima."
- Juliate 6y agoThe good thing with theorizing with it are the conversations that this triggers. :)
- Gravityloss 6y agoThe West German Wirtschaftswunder? The rise of South Korea? Finland? None needed war or imperialism, actually it was the opposite - peace and stability. There were these nations and people - and once the barriers like external or internal suppression or conflict were removed, they could make large strides.
- jariel 6y agoSo that's a very good point. The 'rise of Arabic Science' was totally consistent with conquest. It seems there's a lot of hubris in Science, just like Imperialism, Art, etc. - and you need a lot of 'excess wealth' to delve into things that are not 'subsistence'. The Renaissance probably would not have happened without the concentration of wealth in Venice and nearby areas. I mean who on Earth is going to pay for those weird/crazy instruments to be made and for creators full time to come up with this insane 'symphonic' concoctions. We take it for granted now but what happened was a miracle, and that's just in music.
- netcan 6y agoMy point is that any such theory is untestable, and we're good at convincing ourselves of "truths" that appeal to us. A 19th century nationalist would have liked your first sentence. A 19th century marxist would have liked your second and third one. Any one of them can be challenged with counterexamples. EG, a great modern cognate to Venetian lords and bishops pouring money into prestige projects are the gulf Emirs. Yet...
- jariel 6y agoIt's not 'untestable'; we have a historical record to determine what happened, it would just be a lot of work.
- netcan 6y agoHow would you go about using the historical record to determine that conquest leads to a scientifically advanced culture? How would you formulate the thesis? I want to point out that the concept of falsifiability, largely came around to distinguish between objective & scientific thought and the above.