norse
Banned
Your point being?
that civilization would be way ahead of where it is currently at if there was not so much anti-intellectualism
Your point being?
that civilization would be way ahead of where it is currently at if there was not so much anti-intellectualism
Which anti-intellectualism in Antiquity are we talking about?
It's not because scholarship didn't focused on "hard sciences" and that human sciences were more considered, that "civilization" (there I suppose you meant "Western Civilization" rather than an overgeneralizing term on what's a civilization) was backwards then.
Any culture (historically, or geographically defined) have its own idea of what matters most on it. The technological focus is a quite recent feature, and such highlighting didn't really existed in Ancient Times.
as long as you are not opposed to philosophy for no reasonable cause then there is nothing to worry about
Plato's Academy is exactly what I was pointing out : a scholar surrounded by disciples, not following a precise cursus.and yes there were fully organized academies in the antiquties
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonic_Academy
Probably but it simply wasn't a thing then, and organizing scholarship was quite foreign to the ancient mentality, which knew a more individual and unformal approach.there was a lot to gain from academies
I did. Cato didn't professed anti-intellectualism, but conservative and practical intellectualism.see cato the elder if you need proof
Formal academies didn't existed in Antiquity.
I did. Cato didn't professed anti-intellectualism, but conservative and practical intellectualism.
For instance, his works about fields's work, Italian History, Strategy, Moral, etc.
It can only hardly being considered as an anti-intellectualism, only if you consider human sciences as being such (and therefore, considering much of Hellenic culture as anti-intellectual).
In the year 155 BC, when he was fifty-eight years old, he was chosen with Diogenes the Stoic and Critolaus the Peripatetic to go as ambassador to Rome to deprecate the fine of 500 talents which had been imposed on the Athenians for the destruction of Oropus. During his stay at Rome, he attracted great notice from his eloquent speeches on philosophical subjects, and it was here that, in the presence of Cato the Elder, he delivered his several orations on Justice. The first oration was in commendation of the virtue of Roman justice, and the next day the second was delivered, in which all the arguments he'd made on the first were refuted, as he persuasively attempted to prove that justice was inevitably problematic, and not a given when it came to virtue, but merely a compact device deemed necessary for the maintenance of a well ordered society. Recognizing the potential danger of the argument, Cato was shocked at this and he moved the Roman Senate to send the philosopher home to his school, and prevent the Roman youth from the threat of re-examining all Roman doctrines. Carneades lived twenty-seven years after this at Athens
See my previous post.
Errr...what?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonic_Academy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyceum_(Classical)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musaeum
That said, there's two important things here norse is forgetting:
Archimedes was 75-he's not establishing an academy when he has only a few years left to live.
The Romans didn't have much interest in engineering, at least not yet-the Hellenistic Greeks on the other hand did. Marcellus may have been an anomally as far as contemporary Romans go in actually giving some thought that Archimedes could be useful-but the senate shouldn't care much about him.
The Hellenistic Greeks on the other hand, did.
So, anti-intellectualism is basically everything you don't like. Got it.pratical in this sense is constrained and relative
cato seems in favor of cultural ignorance much like a lot of america
Which anti-intellectualism in Antiquity are we talking about?
It's not because scholarship didn't focused on "hard sciences" and that human sciences were more considered, that "civilization" (there I suppose you meant "Western Civilization" rather than an overgeneralizing term on what's a civilization) was backwards then.
Any culture (historically, or geographically defined) have its own idea of what matters most on it. The technological focus is a quite recent feature, and such highlighting didn't really existed in Ancient Times.
norse;9049808 cato seems in favor of cultural ignorance much like a lot of america[/QUOTE said:Now you are just starting to sound ridiculous.
Did you read these articles?
Again, these weren't even as close from formal academies, and more of philosophical communauties with no systematical or standardized teaching, and certainly not open to strangers but at the contrary reserved to more or less intimate friends; maybe in the line of ancient training grounds for some, but essentially made around ONE figure.
It was nowhere close to an academic in the modern meaning of the word.
If I may, I'm under the impression that you read Lucio Rosso's book about Hellenistic "scientific revolution" there, critically the "decline" part. While most of its other statements were well considered, it's really pointed out that is belief in a earlier "Dark Age" of science is issued from a large bias and huge speculation.]Well it was certainly true on the part of the Romans. The Romans, at least until the mid-late republic (i.e. after they already conquered or more or less put in their place every hellenistic power) didn't care much for the mini-scientific revolution going on in the Hellenistic world (I use the term scientific revolution very, very, loosely).
Now you are just starting to sound ridiculous.
Gremlin from the Kremlin