We have moved to new forum software and posting here is closed!

PLEASE BOOKMARK THE NEW FORUMS

Posted By: Neurolanis Jan 28, 2005 - 04:52 pm

I've been reading 'classic' books on literacy and comparative mythology lately and have come across time and time again references of "uncivilized men." Like, how "uncivilized people" believed in the Greek Gods without a basic understanding of their backgrounds -- that Zeus actually was an interpretation for "the sky" (and that's it??? Hmm..) About how "uncivilized people" were cruel, barbaric, and didn't know the difference between good and evil until MODERN SOCIETY came along. That they were stupid, and driven only by their primal instincts. And these writers refer to some modern people as "uncivilized", and thus taking on an "ancient barbaric likeliness."

Anyway, my question is this: how should we look at people that we see as uncivilized? As somehow LOWER forms of life than you and me? Doesn't that sound pompous? The thing is, I can't deny the truth of the statement entirely -- I've grown up with the ignorance, snottishness, racism and other forms of discrimination, and just pure hatefulness, of people that could accurately be described as "uncivilized", while all the descent people I've known act "civilized." Even people who speak out against the confines of society and demand that we adhere to out natural, "primal" selves ... are themselves more "civilized", I think, than they realize.

I remember seeing an interview with the makers of "South Park" on 60 Minutes. The two guys clearly stated that they believed ALL CHILDREN to be monsters -- "uncivilized" -- cursing and swearing and what not, and only LEARN to be good through society's influences. That reminds me of "Lord of the Flies." In both cases I was just shaking my head. I was young and "uncivilized" once, and not that I never hurt anyone but I wasn't that bad. I had heart, compassion, and was fully aware of my actions. Many of the other kids I knew ... well, seemed right out of that novel. But the "South Park" creators' argument suggests that only SOCIETY makes us good. That, like in "Gulliver's Travels", we're all just a bunch a yahoos in the end! (We just dress up -- and act like so.)

Where did society spring? From some Cybernetic Super Race from outer space? Who maintains it? We did, we do. Does not balance and kindness come from the same heart where comes anger and madness? Does not the same brain that feels warmth and develops intellectual concepts of society also have "primal" and "uncivilized" urges that "weaken" and "bind" us? I've grown up seeing the side of Christianity which says that nature is impure -- nature is unnatural??? -- and must be suppressed and CORRECTED! Is not our nature what we are, and so is not going against our nature going against what we are, and is not going against what we are something which creates OFF-BALANCE and mental problems? Besides which, does not Christianity say that ALL LIFE is the creation of God, and thus should not nature be respected, loved, and obeyed?

Sigh. This is a tuff issue, and it's keeping me up at night. Is PROGRESS and SUPPRESSION OF NATURE the real path that we should lead? Should all our children be as one -- or, to suit Magus -- two-dimensional cut-out mindless drones who cannot think for themselves, who fail to understand or follow their own natural urges, and who are little more than clones fallen from the same cookie cutter?? Why does something deep inside of me scream out "NO!"?? Yet, why must my MIND see the logic in "progress", straying from being "uncivilized"?

Sigh, sigh.. I think that there are two sides to our nature -- the dark and the light. With Christianity has come mass fear and bitterness towards the dark side, believing that morals are vital to the human race, for better or worse. I'm just not sure. Is calling people "uncivilized" being pompous and idealistic in a narrow-minded sense, or is it being superior-minded?

Posted By: Magus Jan 28, 2005 - 05:17 pm

In eighth grade my english teacher told us that we aren't any more or less civilized then... say... ancient Egyptians. Sure, we have more advanced technology, but that doesn't make us more civilzed. He said that we could never have made the pyramids with the same technology and conditions they did. Never.

So we aren't more civilized, only different. And I don't think that we should be judging people that way. It was the whole justification behind every system of slavery in history and shouldn't be used now.

Posted By: Neurolanis Jan 28, 2005 - 06:44 pm

That's right, Magus! They say that ancient people used to be able to store libraries of info in their heads, and used to be driven more by the right side of the brain. And yes, even with today's technology we cannot re-create the Great Pyramid, etc. So true. I've always believed wisdom and knowledge to be two separate things. (Understanding and knowing. One can be "understanding" in nature, and far from knowledgeable.)

I've often felt alone in this, and am tired of hearing about "uncivilized folk" in all these "intelligent" books I read, and people I've spoken with. I started to think that maybe they were right. Maybe. I still see their point, though, as even in ancient times they had much knowledge -- to build the pyramids, etc.! So even then there would have been the learned and the unlearned. Yet again, smarts seem to me to be a tool found through instinct, not in a book.

Maybe I'm just "thinking too much" again! I'll sleep better tonight.

Posted By: Magus Jan 28, 2005 - 06:54 pm

G'night then.

Posted By: Aldan Jan 28, 2005 - 07:15 pm

One point I have to make is this: Ancient Egyptians were not literate. ONLY THE PRIESTS COULD both read AND write. The slaves who did the heiroglyphics didn't know what they were carving - the priests wrote down what was to be carved (well, drew it) and the slaves copied the drawings and then painted it.
Also, I personally believe that slavery is a sign of lack of civilization. I mean, if a person has a bright smile, does that make him intelligent?? The Egyptians did build the pyramids, but they accomplished this via slave labor. We have built many other wonders, which to our minds aren't such, but to even the Ancient Egyptians they would be, and we've done it without the use of slave labor, and without all of the thousands of deaths that were involved in the building of each pyramid. So, civilized?? I beg to differ...

Posted By: Magus Jan 28, 2005 - 07:32 pm

***This post might seem angry and hostile, but it is not intended that way. I would just like to point out that I don't meen any offense if any is taken.***

Europe was built on slave labor. America was built on slave labor. Most places in the world have had slave labor. And slavery really didn't end until not too long ago, even then many were segregated, discriminated against and treated little or no better then slaves. Even now it could be argued.

But do we consider America 100 years ago uncivilized? 75 years? What about 50 years?

Obviously our morals are different then theirs. Obviously there have been major leaps and bounds socially and intellectually. But that didn't meen that they were uncivilized. that also doesn't make us, by comarison, civilized.

Posted By: Aldan Jan 28, 2005 - 08:45 pm

I understand what you mean, and for the time, they considered themselves to be civilized, and the rest of the past was not. It is the same, I believe, in every period of history... If there is a group of people who build a town/village/city, they will think of the people who DON'T have a town/village/city as being less than they are, and thus less civilized. The people in Egypt thought themselves civilized and they were right, for their time.
I believe that the term civilization is one that is tied in with many things. For example, if people group together, are they civilized? Well, perhaps, but then perhaps not... I mean, a village of headhunters in the jungle wouldn't seem very civilized to us, but it would to a homeless tribesman!

What is civilization? That's a tough thing to define, but I'll tell you what I THINK it is...

I believe that civilization is a combination of a grouping of we social creatures in a society which is bound by rules or laws, with several other issues. Often these laws/rules are based upon a societal religion, which will tend to have a strong effect upon the moral character of the citizens. Thus, morals will tend to have to do with civilization as well. All societies have some sort of education which is done, but in a civilization I believe that the education is a bit more structured and organized. Thus, intelligence will have an effect on civilization. Another note is self-defense, because as an organized society, will be able to defend itself against predators much easier/better than will an individual.

Now, due to this definition, which is the one I work by, our society as it is today is civilized, and we would view societies that practice slavery as uncivilized, including our own society when we were doing that. Now, I know that some fowks daown in thuh Deep South may disagree with that, but that is their problem, not mine.

However, mistreatment of other races, while it is something that many of us consider wrong (including myself, to an extreme), there are still many others in society today that have absolutely no problem with mistreating or badmouthing other races. That is not JUST white people of which I speak, either. White men are 'honkies' to many people of one race, and to another we are not of 'la Raza', and that is just two races out of many. Because of the sheer volume of this, I must still say that to society the world of 50 - 100 years ago in America was still civilized, just not to the extent it is today.

I am of mixed heritage myself, and take pride in my racial background.

Posted By: talisman Jan 29, 2005 - 01:43 am

The problem with looking at being 'civilised' as some kind of advancement in a society is that it relies on your own opinion of what 'advanced' means and how you measure that advancement.

Is it measured by technology, culture, social freedoms, political or economic institutions...?

Most people would consider their own society to be more civilised than those that came before. However since we can't see the future, we can't compare our society with one 200 years in the future. In comparison we might appear primitive.

Having said that, I suppose my vision of a civilised society would be one where little if any crime or violence occured, everyone respected the way others live, complete freedom of expression, no (or little) need for laws or governments, education and health care for all, no slavery or poverty and certainly no capitalism or money involved.

So basically a 'collectivist anarchy' is my little civilised utopia. I don't think any of us live in civilised societies by my definition of 'civilised'.

If you treat civilised and uncivilised as two ends of a scale, we're probably closeer to the uncivilised end, than the civilised.

Just my thoughts on it.

Posted By: Neurolanis Jan 29, 2005 - 06:57 am

Another note is self-defense, because as an organized society, will be able to defend itself against predators much easier/better than will an individual.

I could follow you -- not that I entirely agreed, but could follow you -- until this. I think historically peoples could defend themselves just as well as now -- and what does DEFENSE have to do with the issue of "civilized"??

Seems you wrote that carefully, Talisman. Thanks for your comments, everyone. But the issue was meant to be what does "civilized" actually mean and does it make one superior to "uncivilized" people, not what is the definition of Civilization. (Not that it doesn’t apply to some degree.)

Posted By: Magus Jan 29, 2005 - 08:22 am

Talisman, by your definition no sociaty has ever been civilized. While your civilization would be a living Utopia, one that I'd love to be a part of, there's really no way that I think it will ever be actualised. People are rude and stupid and, unfortunately, without government the weak will fall prey to the mighty. But, as I've said before, such a world would be an indescribable blessing.

And that is a well thought out definition of Civilization, Aldan. It varies from mine but seems to hit a lot of the right points.

Posted By: talisman Jan 29, 2005 - 11:28 am

<< Talisman, by your definition no sociaty has ever been civilized.

Exactly. If you lived in ancient Egypt, ancient Greece, ancient Rome etc, you'd consider your society more civilised than others before you. Today we do likewise to all the past civilisations. We admire some parts, but we usually see outselves as superior. Maybe we are.

However, since we can't create a stable definition of what a civilised society is, as the defintion is constantly changing with the centuries, the best we can do is define a civilised society as a utopian one and measure everything against that. (although that does ask the question of whether we can even define a utopia).

Posted By: Magus Jan 29, 2005 - 05:27 pm

Yes. I guess everyone has their own view on that issue.

But I suppose you have got a good point there. It does change and that's a good concept of how to view it.

Posted By: Odrade Jan 29, 2005 - 10:38 pm

I don't like the term "civilized" to me it just seems like a word that purpose is to say that we are better because we are "civilized" and they are worse because they are "uncivlized" It is , as the bottom, a judgement. Which is funny, because, to be civil, is to be polite. Most civilizations seem to thrive on its opposite lethal rudeness, or to put it simply, WAR. SO civilized society is a group that has been put through a process to be polite as a group, BUT civilized society feeds on war and conquest.

Does this seem like an oxymoron to anyone other than me???

Posted By: Aldan Jan 29, 2005 - 11:19 pm

My point about defense is that if a group of people cannot defend themselves, they will have no opportunity to develop civilization, since the "less civilized" will destroy them before they have any chance to really accomplish civilization.

Posted By: Neurolanis Jan 30, 2005 - 10:37 am

I agree, Odrade! And I've always seen "politeness" as bull****. Really, do you say "thank-you for passing the salt" out of the kindness of your heart? Kindness, to me, is an expression of compassion -- which comes about through a true emotional connection to your fellow human beings. Politeness, to me, has always seemed a simulation of kindness, which I feel is due to the insecurities of some individuals, and out of compassion (ironically) others just go along with it. So, in a place full of kindness there is no need for politeness, just like in a place full of spiritualism there is no need for temples, etc. I think humanity -- that which is our nature -- is truer and more powerful than the created intellectual restraints of "civilized" society.

If you were arguing that "peace" is thus a factor of "civilized" society, Aldan, I would have to agree. Why you choose the word "defense" is what confuses me.

Posted By: Aldan Jan 30, 2005 - 05:17 pm

Without defense, there is no peace, until such a time as the whole world is at peace (in which case, defense can go the way of the dodo bird).

Posted By: Neurolanis Jan 30, 2005 - 05:25 pm

True. But if you mean military defence, I disagree.

Posted By: Odrade Feb 02, 2005 - 08:35 am

Okay, first, i think some people are mixing up advanced with civilized. Some countries, like one i can think of today, are military advanced, techology advanced, but looking at the way they treat the rest of the world, it is hard to say they are civilized. But hey, that is an opinion. I don't think there will ever be universal peace. I am not trying to be depressing, but human nature is self-oriented. We are selfish. War started because one group said "that is mine and i am going to take it from you" People do it on a daily basis. heck, i work with kids and i have heard and seen parents encourage their kids to take things they want or think should belong to them. Sad, but true. People still think that using force is okay to get what you want, and until we get rid of that mindset and stop passing it on to the next generation, we will never be free of war. I don't like it, i do my best to counter it, but i do not make it a battle, because i know i will lose.

Posted By: Neurolanis Feb 02, 2005 - 01:29 pm

Yes, we are selfish. The human race is a virus which is sucking the life out of the earth. The world would be MUCH better off without us.

"Civilized" I suppose would be heavily transformed by, and mentally into, one's own society. Yet "civilized" can also mean just ADVANCED -- as Odrade says -- and of course we'd all have different ideas about what is "advanced."

Posted By: Magus Feb 02, 2005 - 01:50 pm

Yes. That's true, all of it.