We are talking about the necessity of Empires for human progress. Which is to say, do we need some sort of hegemony across massive lands to enhance humanity (and not just scientific progress)? Nothing you have said leads to the claim that empires are necessary or natural to human societies or that science did not exist prior to 16th C. I have provided plenty of examples of how non-imperial societies made great progress both culturally and scientifically.
>> The principal Greek city- state was Athens, and it was, indeed, considered an Empire...
Athens was a city-state. How can it be an empire? Athenians did contribute plenty to culture, but they were not unique. Sparta did a good job too. They developed a socialist system way before Lenin and theirs was easier and better to maintain (for example they used copper coins so that old money would rust and you had to put capital to work rather than box it in as a treasure).
>> I said that medicine in the ancient world was "hit or miss". The fact that some remedies were discovered to work is not a contradiction of my point.
How is this different from modern day medicine? Doctors still can't diagnose most patients accurately. At best they recognize there may be some viral infection or bacterial infection or some physical imbalance. There are huge differences between individual physiologies and they are almost never taken into account. By and large modern day doctors, at least in America, know little of physiology and pharmacology. The drugs we use are still of the shot-gun variety rather than a sniper gun. And misdiagnosis is quite common. By and large most ailments take care of themselves, and when they don't, your doctor either changes your prescription or you change him to someone else. I see no reason to believe that 4000 years from now our medicine is not considered as "hit or miss" as you are considering the ancient Egyptian's to be. So does this mean some future generation may claim that Science per se did not exist until 5468 AD?
>> Nothing that you post contradicts my points,it merely shows that you do not understand what I have said. Science is not philosophy (or religion), which is the provenance of most of the ideas you mention.
And you have brought no premises for your claims that (A) Science did not exist prior to 16th C. and that (B) Empires are essential for human progress and (C) Empires are natural to human societies.
I am well aware of the differences between Science and Arts. I just don't think that when discussing human progress, science should get all the credit. And this is why I brought up other subjects.
>> I did not say that there was nothing important in human life or history but science. However, the rise of science and technology has been very beneficial, and it is a boon of the modern world.
No you did not. But you did imply that scientific achievement and modern gizmos are the most important aspects of human achievements. BTW, I have an issue with your statement that "the rise of science and technology has been very beneficial, and it is a boon of the modern world". In what way this has been so? Yes, modern science can better recognize many ailments. But it also created many bio-weapons. Yes the industrial revolution created an increase in material well being. But it also led to pollution, depression, increase in suicide, stress, high blood pressure, and a lot of pain as well. Are we, as modern people, happier than our ancestors were?
Science by itself brings nothing. It is just a tool, like a sword. How you use that tool is what really matters. And how science should be used is not a question answered by science but by philosophy...And that is why IMO the humanities disciplines are more important than scientific ones.
Sun Tzu
There are but two powers in the world, the sword and the mind. In the long run the sword is always beaten by the mind. -- Napoleon Bonaparte |
