3 ms·

If that was the case, then the enlightenment would have occurred in north africa first, then the middle east and then eastern europe. Western europe was centur

If that was the case, then the enlightenment would have occurred in north africa first, then the middle east and then eastern europe. Western europe was centuries late to coffee consumption. Also, how do you explain the renaissance? The enlightenment happened for the same reason that the renaissance happened. Exploration and introduction to new lands, knowledge, goods, wealth, etc. The renaissance was the result of western europe's direct connection to east ( china, india, etc ) via the mongol empire in the 1200s. The enlightenment is the result of western europe's direct connection to the americas via columbus in the late 1400s. It's not an accident that most scholars use 1500 as the boundary between the renaissance and the enlightenment.

tech_ken 3y ago
Isn't this exactly what happened? My understanding of history is that up until like the 16th century North Africa, the Middle East, and India were global leaders in science and industry.
- goodbyesf 3y ago
  > Isn't this exactly what happened? No. > My understanding of history is that up until like the 16th century North Africa, the Middle East, and India were global leaders in science and industry. If anyone were 'global leaders' back then it was probably india and china but both were predominantly tea drinking societies. But there were no real global leaders of 'science and industry' back then because 'science and industry' didn't exist as we define it today and nobody had global influence. North africa hadn't been a leader of anything since the fall of ancient egypt. The middle east had it's moments of glory but far more moments of embarrassment ( european, mongol, turkish, etc conquest ). Arguing coffee was behind the enlightenment is as silly as arguing tea is why britain conquered the world.
  - tech_ken 3y ago
    Okay, thanks for explaining!
  - shrimp_emoji 3y ago
    > North africa hadn't been a leader of anything since the fall of ancient egypt. Not true; see Carthage. They dominated trade and seafaring, and were even the first to sail around Africa (as opposed to the Portuguese, 2,000 years later). Ancient Egypt was in its heydey 2,000 years before Carthage.

tech_ken 3y ago

Isn't this exactly what happened? My understanding of history is that up until like the 16th century North Africa, the Middle East, and India were global leaders in science and industry.

goodbyesf 3y ago
> Isn't this exactly what happened? No. > My understanding of history is that up until like the 16th century North Africa, the Middle East, and India were global leaders in science and industry. If anyone were 'global leaders' back then it was probably india and china but both were predominantly tea drinking societies. But there were no real global leaders of 'science and industry' back then because 'science and industry' didn't exist as we define it today and nobody had global influence. North africa hadn't been a leader of anything since the fall of ancient egypt. The middle east had it's moments of glory but far more moments of embarrassment ( european, mongol, turkish, etc conquest ). Arguing coffee was behind the enlightenment is as silly as arguing tea is why britain conquered the world.
- tech_ken 3y ago
  Okay, thanks for explaining!
- shrimp_emoji 3y ago
  > North africa hadn't been a leader of anything since the fall of ancient egypt. Not true; see Carthage. They dominated trade and seafaring, and were even the first to sail around Africa (as opposed to the Portuguese, 2,000 years later). Ancient Egypt was in its heydey 2,000 years before Carthage.