Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (153608)	12/7/2004 5:50:21 PM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 281500

The Golden Age was golden enough. I have read Al Farabi, Avicenna, Averroes, and others. The had faults as scholars, but were very interesting and helpful in the revival of learning in the West, beginning with the 13th century rise of Albertus Magnus, Thomas Aquinas, Roger Bacon, and Duns Scotus, the period of High Scholasticism. However, it should be noted that these philosophers and scholars were all "liberal" theologically, opening themselves to speculations which could have gotten them in trouble as heretics with the mullahs. Anyway, it is a complex problem.

To: one_less who wrote (153608)	12/7/2004 6:01:41 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I have a different take on things. A lot of what is credited to this brief period of Islamic brilliance is derivative of the Greeks and the Hindus. Moreover, the brilliance is relative since it is always compared to what was taking place in Europe, which was a catastrophe. Once the West recovered, Islamic culture declined enormously, both by comparison and in "real" terms. One could argue that it has not really recovered. The best example is the silly notion recently posited by some Wahabbi muckety muck to the effect that the Earth is flat. Religious doctrine has been suggested as the reason why the Golden Age did not lead to greater Islamic successes: Why did Islam's golden age come to an end? What forces shifted both political power and learning from the Islamic Empire to Christian Europe? Like all historical trends, the explanations are complex; yet some broad outlines may be identified, both within and without Muslim lands. With the end of the Abbasid Caliphate and the beginning of the Turkish Seljuk Caliphate in 1057 CE, the centralized power of the empire began to shatter. Religious differences resulted in splinter groups, charges of heresy, and assassinations. Aristotelian logic, adopted early on as a framework upon which to build science and philosophy, appeared to be undermining the beliefs of educated Muslims. Orthodox faith was in decline and skepticism on the rise. The appeal made by theologian al-Ghazali turned the religious tide back to orthodox belief. In a masterful philosophical argument, most clearly stated in his book, The Destruction of Philosophy, al-Ghazali declared reason and all its works to be bankrupt. Experience and the reason that grew out of it were not to be trusted; they could say nothing meaningful about the reality of Allah. Only direct intuition of God led to worthwhile knowledge. Philosophy was a snare, leading the unwary to the pits of Hell. By the time of his death in 1111, free scientific investigation and philosophical and religious toleration were phenomena of the past. Schools limited their teaching to theology. Scientific progress came to a halt. stormwind.com My suggestion that "[t]here was never a religiously sanctioned drive to produce, create and prosper, as was the case with the West" might have been better phrased, but I think it is essentially accurate.