A WIDE CANVAS
ANCIENT WISDOM AND MODERN ARROGANCE
When we read the history of ancient peoples and their societies around the world- such as it is available- without preconceived notions, and without the intent to compare, we are struck by the fact that everyone of them displayed the same basic characteristics: the individual was considered part of his group or clan, and the society itself was considered part of Nature. Man's job was to adjust to that nature, and not alter it. And they had their own methods and means to feel and participate in the kinship with something greater than themselves.
Modern 'scholars' consider such people 'primitive', undeveloped minds, who just feared the forces of Nature and treated them as gods or divine. But even today, what have the scientists done to control the real fury of nature- such as a cyclone or tsunami? What can the scientific community do to bring rain on a parched land? They may 'seed' the cloud; but who brings the cloud there in the first place? The best they can do against lightning is to have 'arresters'- they can't do anything to control or divert the lightning itself. This is what the primitive man did,too: he too sought to arrest the lightning or protect himself from its effects. He did it with prayer; the modern scientist does it with some physical gadget. Which is better? And yet we see lightning causing damages!
Lightning ripping apart a tree in Walcha, NSWModern 'scholars' consider such people 'primitive', undeveloped minds, who just feared the forces of Nature and treated them as gods or divine. But even today, what have the scientists done to control the real fury of nature- such as a cyclone or tsunami? What can the scientific community do to bring rain on a parched land? They may 'seed' the cloud; but who brings the cloud there in the first place? The best they can do against lightning is to have 'arresters'- they can't do anything to control or divert the lightning itself. This is what the primitive man did,too: he too sought to arrest the lightning or protect himself from its effects. He did it with prayer; the modern scientist does it with some physical gadget. Which is better? And yet we see lightning causing damages!
User:Cgoodwin.
The fact that modern science rose in the West, and because of Western domination that notion has become the standard in the world, has distorted the facts. The West at one stage repudiated its old wisdom and started with new things. It called the old societies primitive. It invented a history showing that civilisation rose from such primitive states. However, every living tradition holds that society was near perfect in the beginning and deterioration set in, in course of time. What the West calls 'progress', the old wisdom would call decadence.
The destruction of old wisdom is a distinctly Christian legacy. Kings had fought before that too, sacked the cities, killed people- but they did not destroy the old practices or beliefs. This is a Christian gift to the world. In 529 AD, Roman Christian emperor Justinian banned the teaching of all non-Christian (Pagan) philosophies in his territory. He closed the famous Academy at Athens, The old temples were destroyed, and the practitioners of old ways were persecuted. Their lore and literature went underground. Gradually, the Roman Catholics took over the temples, valuables, properties of the old religious groups.
For a thousand years before that, great systems of philosophy- with mind-boggling variety, with contrary and contradictory theories and propositions had flourished. In 585 BC, Thales of Miletus had predicted or observed a solar eclipse- precisely on 28 May- and some traditions reckon this date as the date of birth of modern philosophy. There were others beside him and after him- together called 'Pre-Socratic' philosophers. But they give references in their works to more ancient authorities. It seems philosophical quest has been part of man's endeavour since immemorial times.
By user:MathiasKabel (Own work) CC BY-SA.3.0 (http://Creative commons.org/licence/by-sa/3.0] via Wikimedia Commons.
As Gibbon remarked, the people believed in all the gods to be equally true; the philosophers believed all the gods to be equally false;. the administrators did not bother, as the various groups only supported the rulers. Toleration was the order of the day- in matters of belief, as in matters of practice. It was the rise of Roman Catholicism which put an end to the old practices and philosophies, often with violence. As late as 2000, Pope John Paul II openly acknowledged this. On 12 March 2000, he publicly prayed for forgiveness:
An important aspect of the march of Christianity has been the deliberate destruction of the old knowledge systems. In the ancient world, people believed in many gods and many philosophies. Thinkers and poets often argued among themselves and disagreement was common. But it did not result in mutual destruction. Disagreement with an old philosopher was usually the beginning of a new system. In fact, there were no fixed systems of thought. There were philosophers before Socrates who believed that the world had been formed of one substance- but there was disagreement as to that one substance: water, air, fire- each was believed by some as the basic material. And some went to the extent of including even earth as one of the four basic materials giving rise to the the world! No one tried to enforce a single view as the standard, before the Christians. But the Christians would not tolerate anything other than their own and in 391 AD, Pope Theophilus decreed the destruction of the magnificent library of Alexandria.
Burning of the library of Alexandria,391 AD.
This library had been burnt once in 48 BC during the campaign of Julius Caesar, when Caesar ordered his own ships to be burnt.It was said that some 70,000 old books or scrolls were destroyed then.But this had been by accident. And 3 centuries later, the Muslims completely destroyed it. The destruction spree by the Muslims of non-Muslim objects still continues, whether it is the Bamiyan Buddha or other objects in Iraq in the current conflict by ISIS.
Surprisingly, modern science is displaying the same intolerant tendencies, like the old Catholic or current Islamic orthodoxy. No branch of science is totally unanimous in its views or interpretations- be it evolution or the big bang. But scientists who occupy positions of authority, and wield power would not welcome or tolerate dissidence from their own positions.
All the old cultures were polytheistic- and were tolerant of dissidence. The old rulers also supported such an arrangement, so long as public order was not disturbed. The monotheistic religions- Judaism, Christianity and Islam first sowed the seeds of intolerance and this has been followed by the scientific establishment. In a parallel development, in the social sphere, the old systems were tolerant of plurality of belief, while all the so called 'progressive' regimes- and socialist ones, have been intolerant and suppressive of dissidence. Communists, like Catholics and Muslims, destroy all other points of view, and way of life. This is a manifestation of modern arrogance.
Evolution, Big Bang, Relativity- these are the key areas round which modern science is taught. Yet each of them has scientific critics, whose voice is not allowed to be heard or views allowed to be read in the mainstream. The basic idea of evolution is that life originated from non-life. It has never been proved or demonstrated, but it is taught as the only truth. All dissidents are ridiculed. The catholics had an arrangement called inquisition to condemn the heretics. The scientists have a similar arrangement called "peer review". A scientific paper is supposed to be reviewed by other scientists before its publication is allowed in professional science journals. And the peers are from the establishment so that a dissident view can never see the light of day. And a dissident is never given a chance to question the peers or explain his own position. James Lovelock has called this 'self imposed inquisition'. Ultimately, science is about power, no less than politics or organised religion.
All the old polytheistic religions regarded man as a mere creature in the universe, along with innumerable others. The ancient man did not view the world from his point of view; he did not think the world was there to feed his ego or satisfy his desires. The world represented an eternal order, and his job was to fall in line. This was their sense of the Cosmos- which comes out clearly in pre-Christian Greek thought.
From: Early Greek Philosophy. By Jonathan Barnes. Penguin Classics, 2001. Introduction,p.xx
It can be seen that what starts as philosophy- inquiry into the nature of the universe- actually culminates as science! The cosmos is not wayward or haphazard or arbitrary or capricious. It has order- it is in fact an orderly system. If we can understand it at all, it is because it has order, and thus makes itself understandable-analysable! It renders itself open to rational thought! This one word-cosmos- links ancient philosophy and modern science. What has any modern scientist discovered other than that the universe is an orderly system, which he cannot as yet comprehend fully? Seeing that it was precisely what the old Greek philosophers said, how can the scientist, if he is sensible, be arrogant? And how is he better than the old philosopher?
The modern monotheistic religions- Judaism, Christianity, Islam- supplanted the old view of the world which taught man to be humble, as part of the universe. These religions placed man at the centre of the universe. The old religions believed in endless time-eternal cycles. These new religions repaced it with a beginning- and therefore end, thus leading to a linear view of time.
The old philosophers or thinkers did not start from a theory. They started from observation. They belonged to societies which had a sense of direct participation in the drama of the cosmos- this is the sense of the old 'mythos'. If they accepted the old myths as final truths, it became theology. But if they questioned it and made observations of their own, it became the foundation of philosophy. They may or may not accept the old gods, but the order that the gods revealed or represented, was important. A believer in the gods would feel that prayer or sacrifice would propitiate the gods and alter the order, at least temporarily, at least for the one propitiating! But a philosopher might think that the order is unalterable, and it is for us to fall in line!
Indeed, this is the very basis of Plato's ethical philosophy in the 4th century BC. A man has to be virtuous in order to reflect the order in himself, which we find in the universe! It is such harmony which can result in the good life! As we say, as in the macrocosm, so in the microcosm!
As another modern scholar writes:
Robin Waterfield: The First Philosophers. Introduction, p.xxxii. Oxford World's Classics, 2000.
If we can cut through the jungle of jargon with which the scientist surrounds himself and confounds the ordinary understanding, we can perceive that the scientist too is baffled by the cosmos, and is only hiding his ignorance by inventing fancy theories, as children amuse themselves with their toys. When they are seized by real hunger or memory of their mother, they throw away the toys and seek for the substance of the mother. Likewise, when we have a real problem in life, it is the old wisdom which is likely to offer hope, comfort, consolation, or solution- not the scientific theories and the toys they have invented.
The destruction of old wisdom is a distinctly Christian legacy. Kings had fought before that too, sacked the cities, killed people- but they did not destroy the old practices or beliefs. This is a Christian gift to the world. In 529 AD, Roman Christian emperor Justinian banned the teaching of all non-Christian (Pagan) philosophies in his territory. He closed the famous Academy at Athens, The old temples were destroyed, and the practitioners of old ways were persecuted. Their lore and literature went underground. Gradually, the Roman Catholics took over the temples, valuables, properties of the old religious groups.
For a thousand years before that, great systems of philosophy- with mind-boggling variety, with contrary and contradictory theories and propositions had flourished. In 585 BC, Thales of Miletus had predicted or observed a solar eclipse- precisely on 28 May- and some traditions reckon this date as the date of birth of modern philosophy. There were others beside him and after him- together called 'Pre-Socratic' philosophers. But they give references in their works to more ancient authorities. It seems philosophical quest has been part of man's endeavour since immemorial times.
Thales of Miletus. Wikimedia Commons.
He is supposed to be the author of the dictum: Know Thyself.
His main philosophical prescription was: "Nothing in excess".
As it has been pointed out, the questions have remained the same- only the answers have been different. No modern scientist or philosopher has raised a new question. "What can I Know? What may I hope for? What should I do?" - these have been the only questions asked by all philosophers in different ways down the ages. And these are the same questions which even modern science seeks to address, and is unable to answer. It is not that philosophy dawned like a sunrise suddenly one day. There has been no time when it was absent.
The Roman empire was noted for its toleration of religious faith and granted freedom to everyone in matters of religion, so long as the official Roman religion was not disrespected. And in the old pagan religions, we do not find mutual intolerance. Roman emperors themselves had been pagan, or participated in pagan ceremonies.
Bas relief showing emperor Marcus Aurelius offering sacrifice at a pagan ceremony, in gratitude for victory in war.
By user:MathiasKabel (Own work) CC BY-SA.3.0 (http://Creative commons.org/licence/by-sa/3.0] via Wikimedia Commons.
As Gibbon remarked, the people believed in all the gods to be equally true; the philosophers believed all the gods to be equally false;. the administrators did not bother, as the various groups only supported the rulers. Toleration was the order of the day- in matters of belief, as in matters of practice. It was the rise of Roman Catholicism which put an end to the old practices and philosophies, often with violence. As late as 2000, Pope John Paul II openly acknowledged this. On 12 March 2000, he publicly prayed for forgiveness:
Yet, the same Pope said in November of the same year in Delhi that the church should aim to convert the people of Asia in the new millennium, and he specifically mentioned Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs and Jains as the target group! So, the old ghost of 'the mentality of power' is still alive and operating in the Christian order!" Christians have often denied the Gospel, yielding to a mentality of power, they have violated the rights of ethnic groups and people, and shown contempt for their cultures and religious traditions".
Pagans being burnt alive. Credit: Grigoriy Myasoyedov.
An important aspect of the march of Christianity has been the deliberate destruction of the old knowledge systems. In the ancient world, people believed in many gods and many philosophies. Thinkers and poets often argued among themselves and disagreement was common. But it did not result in mutual destruction. Disagreement with an old philosopher was usually the beginning of a new system. In fact, there were no fixed systems of thought. There were philosophers before Socrates who believed that the world had been formed of one substance- but there was disagreement as to that one substance: water, air, fire- each was believed by some as the basic material. And some went to the extent of including even earth as one of the four basic materials giving rise to the the world! No one tried to enforce a single view as the standard, before the Christians. But the Christians would not tolerate anything other than their own and in 391 AD, Pope Theophilus decreed the destruction of the magnificent library of Alexandria.
Burning of the library of Alexandria,391 AD.
This library had been burnt once in 48 BC during the campaign of Julius Caesar, when Caesar ordered his own ships to be burnt.It was said that some 70,000 old books or scrolls were destroyed then.But this had been by accident. And 3 centuries later, the Muslims completely destroyed it. The destruction spree by the Muslims of non-Muslim objects still continues, whether it is the Bamiyan Buddha or other objects in Iraq in the current conflict by ISIS.
Surprisingly, modern science is displaying the same intolerant tendencies, like the old Catholic or current Islamic orthodoxy. No branch of science is totally unanimous in its views or interpretations- be it evolution or the big bang. But scientists who occupy positions of authority, and wield power would not welcome or tolerate dissidence from their own positions.
All the old cultures were polytheistic- and were tolerant of dissidence. The old rulers also supported such an arrangement, so long as public order was not disturbed. The monotheistic religions- Judaism, Christianity and Islam first sowed the seeds of intolerance and this has been followed by the scientific establishment. In a parallel development, in the social sphere, the old systems were tolerant of plurality of belief, while all the so called 'progressive' regimes- and socialist ones, have been intolerant and suppressive of dissidence. Communists, like Catholics and Muslims, destroy all other points of view, and way of life. This is a manifestation of modern arrogance.
Evolution, Big Bang, Relativity- these are the key areas round which modern science is taught. Yet each of them has scientific critics, whose voice is not allowed to be heard or views allowed to be read in the mainstream. The basic idea of evolution is that life originated from non-life. It has never been proved or demonstrated, but it is taught as the only truth. All dissidents are ridiculed. The catholics had an arrangement called inquisition to condemn the heretics. The scientists have a similar arrangement called "peer review". A scientific paper is supposed to be reviewed by other scientists before its publication is allowed in professional science journals. And the peers are from the establishment so that a dissident view can never see the light of day. And a dissident is never given a chance to question the peers or explain his own position. James Lovelock has called this 'self imposed inquisition'. Ultimately, science is about power, no less than politics or organised religion.
All the old polytheistic religions regarded man as a mere creature in the universe, along with innumerable others. The ancient man did not view the world from his point of view; he did not think the world was there to feed his ego or satisfy his desires. The world represented an eternal order, and his job was to fall in line. This was their sense of the Cosmos- which comes out clearly in pre-Christian Greek thought.
Far more noteworthy, however, is the choice of the word kosmos to designate the universe. The noun kosmos derives from a verb which means 'to order', 'to arrange', 'to marshal'- it is used by Homer of the Greek generals marshalling their troops for battle. Thus a kosmos is an orderly arrangement. Moreover,it is a beautiful arrangement: the word kosmos in ordinary Greek meant not only an ordering but also an adornment (hence the English word 'cosmetic'), something which beautifies and is pleasant to contemplate. The cosmos is the world, the totality of things. But it is also the elegant world, and it is the orderly world. And if the cosmos is by definition ordered, then it must in principle be explicable.
From: Early Greek Philosophy. By Jonathan Barnes. Penguin Classics, 2001. Introduction,p.xx
It can be seen that what starts as philosophy- inquiry into the nature of the universe- actually culminates as science! The cosmos is not wayward or haphazard or arbitrary or capricious. It has order- it is in fact an orderly system. If we can understand it at all, it is because it has order, and thus makes itself understandable-analysable! It renders itself open to rational thought! This one word-cosmos- links ancient philosophy and modern science. What has any modern scientist discovered other than that the universe is an orderly system, which he cannot as yet comprehend fully? Seeing that it was precisely what the old Greek philosophers said, how can the scientist, if he is sensible, be arrogant? And how is he better than the old philosopher?
The modern monotheistic religions- Judaism, Christianity, Islam- supplanted the old view of the world which taught man to be humble, as part of the universe. These religions placed man at the centre of the universe. The old religions believed in endless time-eternal cycles. These new religions repaced it with a beginning- and therefore end, thus leading to a linear view of time.
In linear time, we build up a simple story of evolution and change, of paradigm shifts, loss of the past- of one thing being replaced by another, in this case of mythos being repalced by logos. But is this not too simplistic?(Robin Waterfield)
The old philosophers or thinkers did not start from a theory. They started from observation. They belonged to societies which had a sense of direct participation in the drama of the cosmos- this is the sense of the old 'mythos'. If they accepted the old myths as final truths, it became theology. But if they questioned it and made observations of their own, it became the foundation of philosophy. They may or may not accept the old gods, but the order that the gods revealed or represented, was important. A believer in the gods would feel that prayer or sacrifice would propitiate the gods and alter the order, at least temporarily, at least for the one propitiating! But a philosopher might think that the order is unalterable, and it is for us to fall in line!
Indeed, this is the very basis of Plato's ethical philosophy in the 4th century BC. A man has to be virtuous in order to reflect the order in himself, which we find in the universe! It is such harmony which can result in the good life! As we say, as in the macrocosm, so in the microcosm!
As another modern scholar writes:
...all systems of belief evolve to elucidate the order of things and to make sense of the world. In this sense, science is just as much a myth as anything else; it is a framework or model designed to explain and form reality for those people who accept it- that is, for those people who voluntarily become members of that society.......so far from banishing gods, science has merely been the matrix for a new generation of scientific gods, children of the old gods.
Robin Waterfield: The First Philosophers. Introduction, p.xxxii. Oxford World's Classics, 2000.
If we can cut through the jungle of jargon with which the scientist surrounds himself and confounds the ordinary understanding, we can perceive that the scientist too is baffled by the cosmos, and is only hiding his ignorance by inventing fancy theories, as children amuse themselves with their toys. When they are seized by real hunger or memory of their mother, they throw away the toys and seek for the substance of the mother. Likewise, when we have a real problem in life, it is the old wisdom which is likely to offer hope, comfort, consolation, or solution- not the scientific theories and the toys they have invented.
It is wonderful to read through this great article. Very informative. Blessed.
ReplyDelete