4 ms·
We can’t know they were the first. We can’t even know what the idea of a singular Sumerian culture or civilization was. It’s fine to speculate, but it’s pointl
by scoofy 2y ago
We can’t know they were the first. We can’t even know what the idea of a singular Sumerian culture or civilization was.
It’s fine to speculate, but it’s pointless to just decide that our speculation is fact when there is absurdly huge numbers of pre-historic people who may have stumbled upon writing, but never care about permanence.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the proposition: “Ancient Sumerians probably created the first writing system”
- adastra22 2y agoWhy? We have no records of other writing systems that have been conclusively dated to be earlier, and in this case (unlike others, e.g. Chinese) we DO have a very clear record of the development of the script, from accounting symbols to pictograms to ideograms to phonetic transcription. It definitely did not derive from an earlier script, as we see the progression of development in isolation. So why can't we call it the first?
- verisimi 2y agoThe emphasis is on 'know'. This is epistemology and logic. Do you know you are sitting on a chair? Yes. Do you know your birthday? No, in so far as you cannot personally verify it, as you do not recollect that time. It is fine to assume all sorts, that your birthday is as your parents say, that sumerians are the oldest civilization, etc, but history, esp. ancient history is not knowledge, and can never be 'known'. Using 'probably' indicates that this is one's best hypothesis, but doesn't overstate the case (nor mislead) by stating it as an indisputable, known fact.
- adastra22 2y agoOutside of a philosophy class, 'know' takes on quite a bit more pragmatic meaning which is perfectly appropriate here.
- lukan 2y agoAnd inside philosophy class, I would argue, that the knowlege of the chair your are sitting on, is also not so much more confirmed and solid knowledge, than ones own birthday.
- verisimi 2y agoOutside philosophy class, do you not distinguish between those things you have personally experienced, characterising them as things that are known (to you), and between those things that you've seen on a screen or heard, characterising them as (mere) possibilities to you, yet to be experienced/verified?
- lukan 2y agoNo, outside of philosophy class, I do consider it a known fact, that the earth is round, just like I consider my birth to be a known fact, even though I have not personally witnessed both.
- verisimi 2y agoSo, you say you can know things that others have verified, but not you personally. This is belief, surely?
- lukan 2y agoYes, I am a believer in the theory, that the earth is (somewhat) round. But for all practical matters, I can say I know it. Do you think different? I have not had a flat earth debate on HN yet, but am open to it.
- verisimi 2y agoI'm not raising the topic of earth shape. In my first comment, I made a point about what is called knowledge. Read this thread again and you will see I don't object to the common usage - I was merely trying to address the original commentator's confusion. As you say, you agree certain things you believe (earth shape, birth date) but do not know, you nevertheless characterise as 'practical knowledge'. This is fine, and a common usage. I get it. What I would ask you though, is whether there is a value to you or in general in using the word 'know' as distinct from 'believe' - does 'know' mean something special that 'believe' cannot mean? And what about 'think' or 'feel' - can these also be used instead of 'know'? I personally do find a value in trying to say what I mean (and no more!) - I try not to overstate or understate my position. I appreciate when others also try to be clear. I am perhaps a bit excessive in this with my own behaviour as I consider it a form of lie to over- or under- state something, as I may erroneously indicate a level of certainty that could mislead others. For me, being careful with language relates to my morality.
- vehemenz 2y agoI hate to use the old cliche, but absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. There are much older neolithic sites, organized settlements, and evidence of cultural networks that predate Sumerian writing (by a lot). Tally sticks as primitive ledgers predate writing by at least 15,000 years. A lot occurred between this time and the first evidence of writing. We'd know a lot more if wood and bone held up as well as clay and stone. Either way, the sparseness of the archaeological record should humble us into not making any sweeping claims.