Are We Any More Civilized?

[gnomon]

Actually according to the terminology in research, civilization is the least egalitarian of the systems. when the state 'confiscates' the power of the individual.

True. Egalitarianism is a poor example.

I should state that it may be that civilizations provide a greater opportunity for survival for more people than hunter-gatherer societies.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

To dismiss the advances made is to irresponsibly denigrate the very real efforts and sacrifices of those who made them.

Not quite. It's to illuminate the idea that we remain the same animals we've always been, just with different masks.

I agree with you that I shouldn't clump all advances together, but the same error is made when we decide that we are more civilized. That is to dismiss the animal within.

 

[doppelganger]

Who in their right mind would suggest that it would be just fine for Black America to go back to the norms of the 1500's . . . Or that women might as well return to pre-suffrage, pre-Roe-v-Wade standards

But those were also products of "civilization." As was the judgment that aboriginal Americans and Australians were not products of civilization and therefore had lives that did not carry as much (or any) moral value. What is the ultimate goal of "civilization" by which one time period would be measured more civilized than another?

Reminds me of a passage from Dostoevsky's Notes from Underground:

Only look about you: blood is being spilt in streams, and in the merriest way, as though it were champagne. Take the whole of the nineteenth century in which Buckle lived. Take Napoleon--the Great and also the present one. Take North America--the eternal union. Take the farce of Schleswig-Holstein .... And what is it that civilisation softens in us? The only gain of civilisation
for mankind is the greater capacity for variety of sensations--and absolutely nothing more. And through the development of this many-sidedness man may come to finding enjoyment in bloodshed. In fact, this has already happened to him. Have you noticed that it is the most civilised gentlemen who have been the subtlest slaughterers, to whom the Attilas and Stenka Razins could not hold a candle, and if they are not so conspicuous as the Attilas and Stenka Razins it is simply because they are so often met with, are so ordinary and have become so familiar to us. In any case civilisation has made mankind if not more bloodthirsty, at least more vilely, more loathsomely bloodthirsty. In old days he saw justice in bloodshed and with his conscience at peace exterminated those he thought proper. Now we do think bloodshed abominable and yet we engage in this abomination, and with more energy than ever.
Which is worse? Decide that for yourselves . . .

And Dostoevsky wrote this before the 20th century even began. He hadn't seen anything yet.

 

[gnomon]

No, I would not, but that fact is hardly relevant to the thread.

To suggest that we are no more civilized than earlier periods is little more than thoughtless sophistry. Who in their right mind would suggest that it would be just fine for Black America to go back to the norms of the 1500's because there's really no fundamental difference -- because "the tricks have changed, but the trickster is still the same"? Or that women might as well return to pre-suffrage, pre-Roe-v-Wade standards -- because "the tricks have changed, but the trickster is still the same"?

To dismiss the advances made is to irresponsibly denigrate the very real efforts and sacrifices of those who made them.

I don't get the impression that anyone is attempting to denigrate social advances in modern society.

 

[DallasApple]

No, I would not, but that fact is hardly relevant to the thread.

To suggest that we are no more civilized than earlier periods is little more than thoughtless sophistry. Who in their right mind would suggest that it would be just fine for Black America to go back to the norms of the 1500's because there's really no fundamental difference -- because "the tricks have changed, but the trickster is still the same"? Or that women might as well return to pre-suffrage, pre-Roe-v-Wade standards -- because "the tricks have changed, but the trickster is still the same"?

To dismiss the advances made is to irresponsibly denigrate the very real efforts and sacrifices of those who made them.

I dont dismiss them...

But a swollen head may..

As I said...Its not over yet...

Love

Dallas

 

[Willamena]

No, I would not, but that fact is hardly relevant to the thread.

To suggest that we are no more civilized than earlier periods is little more than thoughtless sophistry. Who in their right mind would suggest that it would be just fine for Black America to go back to the norms of the 1500's because there's really no fundamental difference -- because "the tricks have changed, but the trickster is still the same"? Or that women might as well return to pre-suffrage, pre-Roe-v-Wade standards -- because "the tricks have changed, but the trickster is still the same"?

To dismiss the advances made is to irresponsibly denigrate the very real efforts and sacrifices of those who made them.

In what manner does "no more civilized" suggest that anything has to "go back" to being the way it was (as if that were even possible) or that no technological, etc., advances have been made? The trickster in this instance refers to the very spark of genius (jinn-in-us) that allows for such advances to occur. It refers to Man.

 

[Ozzie]

As DallasApple stated, I wonder how many still do.

Gnomon brings up an interesting point:



What is the purpose of comparing us to our ancestors?

I would suggest it is in the same spirit as learning history or studying mythology. The human race could be seen as a dynamic entity (doesn't have to be, and I can think of some practical reasons for both viewpoints), and if claims are going to be made of it being "more evolved" or "more civilized," then we can look at where we were and decide if where we are is where we want to be.

This is along the lines of what I was thinking when considering "what is civilised". It doesn't make sense to make historical comparisons because civilisation is a contemporary construction rated in terms of being civilised or not vis a vis contemporary comparators. To the extent those comparators have different values, it makes less sense as well to make those value judgements. Maybe civilisation is a racist notion unless one is prepared to include all civilisations existing at one point in time ie mankind. Here I'm beginning to move onto what Willamena is saying....

I think we should stick to "civilisation" as meaning either one civilisation in isolation, or all civilisations at one point in time. Either way, comparison is redundant, unless one is prepared to step into racism. Technological advancement is a better way of comparing across time, because no one civilisation can own it.

 

[gnomon]

There are many valid comparisons to be made between civilizations without resorting to racism.

I would say its the opposite. Refusing to acknowledge the variety of development among specific key civilizations ignores the variety of culture, language and technological developments that help us understand such things as why the cultures of China failed to spread across the globe from the 16th century on in the same manner that European cultures did.

The term civilization has been used to mask prejudicial beliefs but there is no need to drop the term itself.

 

[Functionless]

I don't think we are more civilized, so I agree with you. I think that we are civilized (socialized) differently now. This isn't necessarily more civilized, unless you want to judge it by some made up criteria such as the fact that we stand in lines now in some places, but again, that criteria is made up.

 

[doppelganger]

It seems to me that a definition of "civilization" that focuses on the results rather than the methods is only going to lead to the sort of confusion this thread has generated.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It seems to me that a definition of "civilization" that focuses on the results rather than the methods is only going to lead to the sort of confusion this thread has generated.

It seems to me that little is accomplished by shifting the focus from "civilized" to "civilization."

 

[DallasApple]

It seems to me that a definition of "civilization" that focuses on the results rather than the methods is only going to lead to the sort of confusion this thread has generated.

I'll be the first to admit Im a wee bit confused..

Love

Dallas

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Reminds me of a passage from Dostoevsky's Notes from Underground:

And Dostoevsky wrote this before the 20th century even began. He hadn't seen anything yet.

Well, we are Ungrateful Bipeds.

It seems to me that a definition of "civilization" that focuses on the results rather than the methods is only going to lead to the sort of confusion this thread has generated.

Right. Results that appear civilized can come from most uncivilized behavior.

Part of my reason for posting this was because it is a confusing issue. We assume our own kingly status and put on the crown of civilization thinking that the crown is what will deliver us from the evils of primitive existence.

But under that crown is nothing better than an animal. The trick is realizing that's not such a bad thing.

 

[doppelganger]

It seems to me that little is accomplished by shifting the focus from "civilized" to "civilization."

It seems to me that you could use a crash course in reading comprehension.

 

[Ciscokid]

Having a safe and sound social infrastructure [police, medics, university, stores etc] gives us a lot of potential to be civil. You'll notice that the countries that lack social infrastructure tend to have violent and uncivil environments.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Having a safe and sound social infrastructure [police, medics, university, stores etc] gives us a lot of potential to be civil. You'll notice that the countries that lack social infrastructure tend to have violent and uncivil environments.

Do you think humans more or less act on this potential?

 

[Runewolf1973]

We are all animals. Being animals we have that potential to live harmoniously with nature and our environment. It is our human "minds" that give us the potential to think and act like barbarians. We are no more civilized than we were in the stone-age. Now we have guns and bombs instead of sticks and stones, that's makes matters even worse. But that's just my opinion.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Wouldn't the increase in democratic governments around the world signal that we are more civilized since these people are choosing to settle their political differences in a rather peaceful fashion instead of resorting to violence?

 

[tomspug]

In the vegetarian thread, Suraj wrote:



I'd like to discuss this without taking the other thread off-topic.

Are we any more civilized now than any other period of history?

First, what do we mean by "civilized"? It seems to me that it refers to how we treat each other and the world around us rather than our technological developments, but I've seen the term used to describe that as well: "No computer? How uncivilized!"

I say we are no more civilized than when we hunted our own animals, produced weapons and food from them, and lived in simple shelters (some are not so simple!).

1) While we produce products from inorganic materials, this process still affects the environment in such as way as it doesn't eliminate the role of death or suffering from the process.

2) We certainly do not treat each other or the world around us any better. We have compassion within the human species, but I'm sure we always have.

3) Ecological concerns were known by our frugal ancestors as well, but on a more utilitarian, and arguably a more practical, level.

What else could civilization mean?

If anything, society has gotten worse. Medicine, as we know it, doesn't make our society better. It simply increases our dependency on it. It spends most of its time trying to undo the ills CAUSED by the society we have created.

There is certainly not less war in the world. We have simply moved it from a local level onto a global level.

And, most of all, we are definitely not any happier than we were thousands of years ago.

 

[Ciscokid]

Do you think humans more or less act on this potential?

Some of us do. There are very peaceful humans who are the "pillars" of society. Then there are some folks who were given safe and prosperous environments but still chose to be uncivil.