[Oxymandias]

@annatar1914

It is perhaps a reflection of my own bias, but I think Middle Easterners were too smart to take science and technology down the road that the West took exactly, and not having the cultural hallmarks to take the directions the West took, did not have an actual ''failure'' as a civilization. To me it's not a bad thing, as I do not believe that this western style science and technology is sustainable. Prosperity I believe is more a function of social stability than science/technological progress in my opinion.

TIL the Middle East is stable. It isn't. It is far from the most social stable region out there and if any one told you otherwise, they're merely romanticizing the ME (I've actually legitimately seen this with some people on the internet praising the Middle East for it's "group solidarity" when you can just look at the news to see otherwise. It mirrors Arab descriptions of Europeans as both simultaneously savages but also as "honorable").

I do think that the way science is done in the West is flawed but that has less to do with science and technological progress and more to do with it's methodology.

[annatar1914]

@annatar1914



TIL the Middle East is stable. It isn't. It is far from the most social stable region out there and if any one told you otherwise, they're merely romanticizing the ME (I've actually legitimately seen this with some people on the internet praising the Middle East for it's "group solidarity" when you can just look at the news to see otherwise. It mirrors Arab descriptions of Europeans as both simultaneously savages but also as "honorable").

I do think that the way science is done in the West is flawed but that has less to do with science and technological progress and more to do with it's methodology.

@Oxymandias

I'm sorry I should have been more clear; I believe that in general, the Middle East was more socially stable and thus geopolitically so, until the West changed the dynamic as they did around the world.

Now, the region is terribly unstable, which any region of the world might be caught between two very different ways of looking at the world, represented by two different civilizations.

[Oxymandias]

@annatar1914

I mean, it was as stable as any region going through turbulent times in the 19th century. The Qajars were horrible rules, the Ottomans we’re losing a lot of land to internal issues but we’re relatively stable and were making gains in Central Asia and North Africa but the Young Turks were an issue and so was Turkish nationalism.

I don’t think there has ever been a period in history where everything was socially stable and static. The most prosperous times in our society were the most turbulent and unstable so maybe society isn’t meant to be static or “stable”.

[Drlee]

Like I said, you should fucking read. You use your ignorance as a way to prove that Islam didn't have an effect on the development of sciences when those scientists clearly stated the influence of Islam on their scientific careers.

I never said this. You simply construct too many straw men. You also misunderstood my point about Ptolemy. Your reading comprehension is simply not up to the task sport. So you get angry and swear. I will try to use smaller words and stay away from complicated points.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Here's a transcript of my arguments with @Victoribus Spolia for those who are curious so you can make your own judgements:

I love how my conversation with someone in a seperate thread is used as evidence in completely different thread.

What a pleasurable transcript to read; though it would have been nice to see the whole thing unedited in its whole, or atleast a link.

But even with a understandable bias for your own position, I am the more convinced of my points in that discussion after reading these snippets.

It does make us both look good though.....like a couple of real armchair historians....

[Oxymandias]

@Victoribus Spolia

I love how my conversation with someone in a seperate thread is used as evidence in completely different thread.

I don't like repeating myself. If someone in another thread uses the same exact arguments as someone in a previous thread or within the same exact thread, I link it. If only the reason why I posted this particular transcript is because it is so comprehensive and because, since you are a much more capable debater than the posters on this thread, it is the equivalent of a thread-killer since they would have to pick off from the arguments you have already made and I highly doubt they willing to do that.

What a pleasurable transcript to read; though it would have been nice to see the whole thing unedited in its whole, or atleast a link.

I do not ever alter information I post here. Everything you read here is the full transcript of the discussion we had unless you consider me bolding certain segments of the discussion relevant to this thread and my point. I have went through the process of even writing who said what just to make sure I wasn't putting words in your mouth. If you would like a link, here it is:

viewtopic.php?f=45&t=170819&start=640

I am never biased when I provide sources and information.

But even with a understandable bias for your own position, I am the more convinced of my points in that discussion after reading these snippets.

That is natural

It does make us both look good though.....like a couple of real armchair historians....

That is true.

[Oxymandias]

@Drlee

I never said this. You simply construct too many straw men. You also misunderstood my point about Ptolemy. Your reading comprehension is simply not up to the task sport. So you get angry and swear. I will try to use smaller words and stay away from complicated points.

You literally state:

Ibn al-Haytham was a marvelous man. Probably one of the great minds of all times. Did this have anything to do with Islam? I don't know.

When, just a short while ago, you quoted Ibn al-Haytham's wikipedia page to prove POD wrong. Where did I get all my information from regarding Ibn al-Haytham's religious beliefs? That same exact wikipedia article. This is exactly my point, that you use your own ignorance about Ibn al-Haytham's (as well as every single Islamic philosopher and scientist) as a method of proving that there's no way we can know if Islam influenced the Islamic Golden Age.

Furthermore, you stated that Ptolemy invented or used the scientific method despite the fact that not only is this a huge misunderstanding of the scientific method, but also is objectively false because the scientific method is both a formal method and relies on more than just "observe, try something, and see what sticks". You need to think of a question (not necessarily an observation), a hypothesis, a prediction, testing, and then analysis. Islamic scientists have done this all in their work. Whether or not they did it correctly doesn't matter. What matters was that there was a conscious effort in meeting those qualifications.

Ptolemy's works on the other hand has no such structure. Hell, Ptolemy doesn't even discuss the implications or analyzes his results, he just writes what he found out and leaves everyone else to analyze it until Islamic scholars came along and called him out on his shit. This isn't the scientific method, this is trial and error which is fundamentally different from the scientific method.

Also, for a guy who criticizes POD for being too succinct, you seem to think that conciseness is a virtue despite previously stating that you find such behavior irritating. Do you or do not like concise statements?

[hartmut]

........ but I don't remember any references to Islamic work (or better Middle Eastern work during the time of Islam). From that alone I conclude that your claim that "modern Western philosophy is derived from Islamic philosophy" is nonsense.
..

Al Gebra means algebra (skill to calculate). Math was at least conveyed through that culture to Europe.
Beginning 16th century Arab math started to replace the very poor Roman one.
The same with Greek philosophers. Aristoteles was not at last brought through Al Andalus (Spain).
And most stars you can see at night bear Arabic names, because of superior knowledge in astronomy.

Last, but not least, Muslim world was well established in the Balkans, even knocking Viennas doors in 1683.


Rugoz,
you say you'd read a lot, but do not remember any thing that refers to "Islamic work" regarding our "western culture".
May I ask you what you have read?

[Hellas me ponas]

I am specifically thinking of First Crusade in the poll, were the Crusades justified?

That is, were the Crusades following a just cause for the war? (e.g. retaliation or to give aid to others); or was it nefarious and purely self-serving? Were the Muslims in the right? were they victims of an unjustified attempt at proto-colonialism? Give me your thoughts PoFo!

No, not at all!
Crusades have no legal or ethical justification. Or any justification at all.
Explanation maybe, but no justifications.

Thousands of lives were perished and lost in the name of God, while Christianity teachings are the exact opposite of making war. Thus religiously its already condemned.
Now legally, Alexios of the byzantine empire sent a letter to pope asking for help. This had happened sometimes in the past, both ways. The help, would always consist of money and weapons, maybe even few warships and a couple hundreds of troops.
Now this letter, could only justify a Catholic campaign on anatolia, which would end up just giving the byzantines back their lands. But totally not the holy lands, moreover sacking and raising constantinople on the fourth one . Thus legally, totally condemned again.

So you see, crusades were just the result of some very ambitious figures. Not justified at all and maybe the biggest fail in history of mankind (from every perspective).

[Hellas me ponas]

Also Christians were not mistreated at all at the holy lands. Muslims at that time were very respecting to holy sites and pilgrimage.
This was one of the first mass propaganda acts in human history.

Crusades should be considered as criminal as Hitlers holocaust.
It fits all the criteria : -Hate Propaganda against a certain group of people
- use of brutal force to "retake" "Christian" lands and expel this other group of people from it.
-establishing states whose purpose is literally to hunt Muslims.
-mass murders and rapes of civilians
- Europe bringing in most of the world into a bloody series of wars AGAIN

[Rancid]

Everyone warred like crazy back then.
Asyrians, Hitties, Egypt ,etc, etc.

War is universal. we're all dicks.

[Potemkin]

Everyone warred like crazy back then.
Asyrians, Hitties, Egypt ,etc, etc.

War is universal. we're all dicks.

The Assyrians were gone by 600 BC, the Hittites were gone by about 1200 BC, and the Egyptians were a vassal state from 33 BC onwards. By the time the Crusades were a thing, all of these empires had been destroyed long before. By war, naturally. Lol.

[Oxymoron]

Man the Muslims took over the Holyland, then attacked pilgrims who tried to go there. The Byzantines asked for assistance from Western Europe, and recaptured Christian territory. How were they not justified, even by today's standards?

[MadMonk]

The Assyrians were gone by 600 BC, the Hittites were gone by about 1200 BC, and the Egyptians were a vassal state from 33 BC onwards. By the time the Crusades were a thing, all of these empires had been destroyed long before. By war, naturally. Lol.

What Rancid meant to say as of course the Seljuk Turks in this case.

The Crusades where some of the most vicious of cynical robbery and combined with brainwashed ideology, as if God cared what we do to each other.

They where also directed at other places than the Middle East. We Swedes loved the crusades as it gave us the opportunity to convert the heathen Finns (and lay the foundation of centuries of Swedish rule in Finland).

No less than three crusades were sent by us against Finland during the 12th and 13th centuries. There was no motivation but spreading the word of God, of course.

[Rancid]

The Assyrians were gone by 600 BC, the Hittites were gone by about 1200 BC, and the Egyptians were a vassal state from 33 BC onwards. By the time the Crusades were a thing, all of these empires had been destroyed long before. By war, naturally. Lol.

Fair enough, I can't say I know my ancient history timelines, it's all a blur to me.

That said, is my assumption that there has always been conflict in europe, middle east, Asia, the Americas at pretty much all times, wrong?

Anyway, the way I see it is the crusades were a great way to promote Christianity. Nothing better to unify Europe under Christianity than to point to the boogieman to the east.

Oh shit, we're doing that today with china no?

[Potemkin]

Fair enough, I can't say I know my ancient history timelines, it's all a blur to me.

The Crusades were in the Middle Ages, not the Ancient world, @Rancid.

That said, is my assumption that there has always been conflict in europe, middle east, Asia, the Americas at pretty much all times, wrong?

Correct.

Anyway, the way I see it is the crusades were a great way to promote Christianity. Nothing better to unify Europe under Christianity than to point to the boogieman to the east.

Essentially correct, though I think it's fair to say that the Fourth Crusade didn't do much to promote Christianity in the Middle East. Lol.

Oh shit, we're doing that today with china no?

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

[Rancid]

The Crusades were in the Middle Ages, not the Ancient world, @Rancid.

I already admitted I'm a dummy. No need to rub it in more!

[Oxymoron]

Anyway, the way I see it is the crusades were a great way to promote Christianity. Nothing better to unify Europe under Christianity than to point to the boogieman to the east.

Well no.... at that time the Christian churches still pretty unified. So the Archbishops of Constantinople and Antioch and Jerusalem and Rome were part of the same community. That community was under attack first by the Fatimid who desecrated Christian sites, and more acutely under direct attack of the Muslim Turks who were grabbing Byzantine/ Christian land like it was Nike's during the Flyod Goerge Protests. Under this double threat Alex asked for help from the west, mind you the west knew very well what the Muslims are capable of if not checked..Spain, Italy and Frankia knew very well. So they sent armies to check the Turkish expansion, and they did splendidly, This was not a war of aggression but rather a counter attack.

[Rancid]

Well no.... at that time the Christian churches still pretty unified. So the Archbishops of Constantinople and Antioch and Jerusalem and Rome were part of the same community. That community was under attack first by the Fatimid who desecrated Christian sites, and more acutely under direct attack of the Muslim Turks who were grabbing Byzantine/ Christian land like it was Nike's during the Flyod Goerge Protests. Under this double threat Alex asked for help from the west, mind you the west knew very well what the Muslims are capable of if not checked..Spain, Italy and Frankia knew very well. So they sent armies to check the Turkish expansion, and they did splendidly, This was not a war of aggression but rather a counter attack.

ok, but was this the case for all of the Crusades?

[Oxymoron]

ok, but was this the case for all of the Crusades?

Well this was the case for the first crusade.
The second crusade was needed to confirm and defend the gains.
Crusades would have succeeded if this was about territorial gains, and expanding christianity.
But once Jerusalem was won, and the war become more about geo politics of the middle east, the west lost
interest, It was no longer dire and so they grew tired of spending money and troops on this. This proves that the war
was not from a position of expansion but rather a response to what was happening. Obviously once the Fatamids and Turks
united their respective kingdoms the loosely associated west could not hold them back.