Rise and Fall of Arabic Science and Society

Posted by dbhalling 12 years ago to Culture
26 comments | Share | Flag

This article is a bit long, but there are some very interesting points. The most important being that the decline of the Arabic world was caused by a move to irrationalism.

But the Islamic turn away from scholarship actually preceded the civilization’s geopolitical decline — it can be traced back to the rise of the anti-philosophical Ash’arism school among Sunni Muslims, who comprise the vast majority of the Muslim world.


All Comments

  • Posted by 12 years ago in reply to this comment.
    I am not positive that it eliminates the spoils of war, but the US has never taken the spoils of war.

    I think the growth of the military is another area that makes the US similar to Rome near its fall. There may have been some justification during the cold war for the large military, but no longer. I think the military is the republican pet welfare project.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 12 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Do you think one major difference between US's problems and Rome's is that globalization eliminates the spoils of war?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by mminnick 12 years ago in reply to this comment.
    The history channel has a show call Big History (I think). It show connections between things that are not readily apparent.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 12 years ago in reply to this comment.
    An interesting series of books on the fall of the Roman republic was written by Coleen McCullough http://www.amazon.com/First-Man-Rome-Mas....

    These books show very similar parallels to what is happening in the US today, including the disregard for the Constitution and Law.

    In my opinion, one of the geniuses of Rome was that they gave all their conquered subjects some form of citizenship. I would argue that part of the cause of the American revolution was a failure to give the colonists citizenship.

    Roman culture was built on classical Greek culture. Overtime the Senate managed to maneuver the laws so they ended up with all the land (absentee landlords) and most of the tax farming jobs. The Roman economy began to depend on conquering other countries to support its economy. This like being a thief - eventually you run out of other people's money. The advent of Christianity killed off any hope for Rome.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by preimert1 12 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Here is a link to a response I submitted to a local paper regarding the flack that an eleven year-old got from a lot of folks regarding an essay he entered in the paper's contest in which her wrote: "If God exists he is a jerk." As one might expect, this was like throwing a rock at the hen house and elicited a lot of responses--one of which was mine.
    http://www.easyreadernews.com/74217/lett...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by mminnick 12 years ago in reply to this comment.
    We seem to be training the best and brightest of the worlds citizens. They then turn around and go home for the most part. Some remain here, but most don't.
    This perhaps levels the playing field for a short time, but eventually the ideas and concepts that move the future will start coming from other lands, other cultures, some if not all hostile to the US and the West.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by mminnick 12 years ago
    I have always thought that classes in the history of science should be taught in high school and college. There are many aspects of the sciences and mathematics that other cultures have discovered and then passed into common usage with a note as to origin.
    Looking at the history of science and mathematics would clearly show that each culture, each race and each land has produced great minds that have changed the course of history for some or all of humanity.
    The other thing it shows is how the center of thought and creativity move about from country to country around the world. There is no single spot that is the fountain of knowledge consistently.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by UncommonSense 12 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Self education is usually the best kind. The problem though, is finding accurate & reliable sources of information without running into an implied political stance or complete omittance of certain facts. (e.g., who financed Vlasimir Ulyanov & his Bolsheviks?)

    Many people here may ask 'Who's Vlasimir Ulyanov?' He changed his name to Vladimir Lenin after he became the leader of the Bolshevik party. This only came about after his older brother, Alexander was tried & executed for the assassination attempt on the czar.

    Anyways, who funded the Russian Revolution for the Bolsheviks? WE DID: Kuhn-Loeb & Co (bank of NY). Funny, this was never mentioned in my high school or college courses. I had to learn this on my own. Congrats on the self-education of things that interest you. Public education usually disappoints...but I digress.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Hiraghm 12 years ago in reply to this comment.
    By the end of the Roman Empire, most of the slaves were... Romans. Rome was "diluted" far more by free "wetbacks" crossing the Rhine to do the jobs Romans wouldn't do.

    In the Republic, a military career (and a soldier had to provide his own kit) was a path to wealth and success. That changed as the Empire developed and weakened.

    And I think the attribution of lead poisoning to Rome's fall is overwrought. There's nothing in the histories, for example, to suggest the later Romans became increasingly near-sighted.

    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Hiraghm 12 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Are we speaking globally, or about Rome?

    I never took early Western Civ, btw. I taught myself, mostly. Except for American history. I aced that twice in high school... :)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by UncommonSense 12 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Hmm. Interesting read. It's obvious you got an "A" in early Western Civ. :) However, I argue that top-down central control occurred long before the arrival of JC. There are plenty of tyrannical figures mentioned in the Old Testament to back this up. Just my .02.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by fivedollargold 12 years ago
    There are many reasons for the fall of the Roman empire. My personal feeling is that the most important reason was slavery. It resulted in the importation to Rome and other Italian cities of hundreds of thousands of people which gradually diluted the native population. This also caused deterioration of the willingness of Roman citizens to serve in the military and a general decadence of culture. By 400 A.D., the Roman army consisted mostly of foreign mercenaries and the lower classes. Of course, lead pipes and pewter plates, more available to the rich, probably contributed to mental defect in disproportionate numbers of the upper classes.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Hiraghm 12 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Which resulted from tolerance and multiculturalism.

    The "top-down" control began shortly before the arrival of Christ, when Caesar tried to become dictator for life, and Octavian made emperor.

    This might help explain the later stages:
    http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/Rome-Fel...

    "Let us step back a bit— into the fourth century— and meet a man whose style of life can show us some of the yawning absences in Roman society, absences that would lead directly to the calamities of the fifth century. He is Ausonius the poet, and he kept an impressively large, exquisitely maintained country estate in Bordeaux in the province of Gaul and, after his father's death, another equally impressive estate in Aquitaine. Born just one hundred years before the German migration over the Rhine, he was raised not by his mother, of whom he doesn't seem to have had especially fond memories, but by two battle-axes, a grandmother and an aunt, both named Aemilia.

    In his Parentalia, which might best be translated Obsequies for the Forebears, he extols their virtues.

    "Ausonius's poetry is full of pia verba; except for the occasional, only half-intentional epiphanies (as in the poems about the Aemilias), there is little else. There are endless sequences about forebears, about former teachers, about daily life, about classical subjects (the heroes of the Trojan War, the Twelve Caesars), endless word games, and endless imitations of Virgil. He has one hot poem, "Cento Nuptualis," hot enough to be left untranslated in the Loeb Ausonius, where it has titillated as many generations of aging Latinists as it has frustrated generations of schoolboys— a clinical, cynical description of a bride's deflowering on her wedding night. Yet even here he is deliberately unoriginal: every phrase is taken from the poems of Virgil. Thus does he mean to avoid censure by appealing to the ultimate literary authority and to win admiration by a dazzling display of his knowledge of Virgil. But, apart from these hommages, there is almost never a memorable phrase, just high-class jingles, written to formula. His letters, also endless, are no better: there is seldom any necessary information to be communicated, insights are scarce, and genuine emotion is almost entirely absent. Though his effete contemporaries compared Ausonius to Virgil and Cicero, practically all others have found themselves in agreement with the robust opinion of Gibbon: "The poetical fame of Ausonius condemns the taste of his age."

    How could a grown man have spent so much time so foolishly? Well, it's what everyone else was doing. This is a static world. Civilized life, like the cultivation of Ausonius's magnificent Bordeaux vineyards, lies in doing well what has been done before. Doing the expected is the highest value— and the second highest is like it: receiving the appropriate admiration of one's peers for doing it."
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 12 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Actually I think the point is broader. I think it shows that one's metaphysics and epistemology are critical as Rand said. There are forms of irrationalism that do not involve belief in a deity. These are as dangerous or more dangerous than religion.

    This was part of my point on the post about the philosophy of science. Irrationalsim has entered into science even in the west. For instance, the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics is specifically irrational. As is the basis of (most) Austrian economics. See David Kelley's paper on Rand vs. Hayek.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by UncommonSense 12 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Also due to epidemic corruption and internal fighting/assassinations~unstable at the top, instability flows downward. So much for top-down centralized control, hmm?

    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 12 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Interesting point - I noticed that those darn Mongols seemed to have a role in both - or were they just an affect of decline.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 12 years ago in reply to this comment.
    At the same time, a country founded by deists who believed in religious pluralism, exactly the opposite of occasionalism, quickly became a dominant power.

    The upshot I take away from this article is religion may be more corrosive to civilization that I thought.

    I know that's simplistic. When I took history, all I cared about is science. I got out of taking history in college by taking history of science and history of biology. Now I actually care about history.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 12 years ago
    My understanding is religion is not good at gov't administration. So when the Roman Empire collapsed and religion tried to take its place, things were not run well. That's why we used to call the Middle Ages the Dark Ages. All the Classical scientific and mathematical knowledge was preserved in the Arabic Empire.
    This article makes it seem like Arabic civilization went through the same problem Rome had: it over-extended and faced Mongol attacks (similar to the Roman Empire's Germanic tribe attacks), and then they adopted religious authoritarianism. By this reckoning, Arabic civilization followed the same path as Roman civilization, but Arabic civilization entered its dark ages later and is still there.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo