3 ms·
>You might like your terms more, but they are not historically accurate. They were very happy to exploit things, they just didn't see how certain things could b
by batista 15y ago
>You might like your terms more, but they are not historically accurate. They were very happy to exploit things, they just didn't see how certain things could be exploited.
I don't think they were stupid (the inventions prove it in the first place).
They were perfectly capable of seeing how they could be if they focused on that dimension. They just didn't focus on that dimension, which is what I'm saying.
>Most of the things were invented "for fun" and when that worse off (for example the emperor lost interest) they were forgotten.
Which corroborates what I'm saying. They didn't event them to exploit them in the first place, but with a playful attitude towards them.
- ars 14y agoThe most definitely did try to exploit them for personal gain - the only difference was the gain was favor from the emperor rather than selling in the market. You are trying to imply they did things purely for the fun and interest in them, and that is completely not true. If the emperor wanted to sell the things, they would have jumped at that. Don't try to imply they had some "noble" mindset with an implied criticism of those with a more mercantile mindset since that's simple not true, and it's just a form of the "noble savage" fallacy. The main criticism you can read into my text (if you want) is that when the emperor lost interest they did not just stop making the item - they also forgot how to make it, they did not record the inventions for future generations. They apparently were not interested in collecting knowledge, only in amusing or impressing the emperor.