The Social Bomb

[Keltoi]

Really? Do you have any sort of evidence for this? I don't see any correlation to weakening family bonds and Roman or Greek decline (nor do I see any way to actually measure "weakening family bonds").

I do see a correlation between the collapse of the Roman Empire and the rise of Christianity though.


Socrates and Plato were writing during the golden age of Greece. Shortly after they wrote, the Greeks conquered most of the known world, and scientific knowledge was at a high point in history.

I also fail to see any correlation between Plutarch's writings and Roman decline.

How on earth is this evidence of anything?


The U.S. is a more religious nation than Canada, Japan, and much of Europe—none of which are declining. The most religious nations—Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan—tend to be the poorest and least stable.

If anything, the U.S. is declining because of the domestic and foreign policies of religious lunatics.

But of course, you can blame the homosexuals for fueling our oil addiction, declaring unjust wars and racking up a multitrillion dollar national debt. I'm sure gay sex caused these things.

To understand weakening "family bonds" you would probably have to change the way in which you understand the word "family". When I mentioned this I was primarily thinking about Greece, and the "polis." To a Greek, loyalties were a ladder of responsibilities. A Greek was loyal to his family, his clan, his polis(community), and when necessary the Greek kingdom itself. When this structure began to break down, as it did during the time of Plato, it weakened the foundation of Athenian civilization. I suppose I could quote you portions of Plato's Republic where this exact scenario is mentioned, but I don't have the book handy at the moment. If you want I will post them later.

An expanding empire doesn't equate to a stable society.

As for Plutarch, he was an historian. If you read Life of Demetrius, Life of Agis, and Life of Cleomenes, it explores in great detail the changes in Athenian society.

The reason all of that is related to Rome is because the same scenarios played out there as well. Not to mention that Rome adopted the Hellenistic world, from which all of this is derived.

As for religion, I don't remember asserting that simply being "religious" was a formula for a successful state. The primary formula for a successful state, IMO, is strong family and community bonds. Why? Because without them you stand for nothing. You become an individual. Individualism isn't a healthy philosophy for a successful state. Not in the long run.

 

[Keltoi]

Meh, It went all Byzantine, and Christianity kinda went all catholic, and we had a few big wars, and the Cathys tromped through constantinople, and then The Turks tromped through Constantinople the other way....then Rome died.

We did fight the byzants mate...loads of times. We slaughtered entire freaking citys of Orthadoxes....3rd or fourth crusade...I was reading it last night.

Sucks to be them.

I believe you are referring to the 4th Crusade when the Venetians and Franks attacked Constantinople? What caused this was a usurper to the Byzantine throne, named Alexius III. The rightful emperor, Alexius IV, asked the Crusaders to help him drive the usurper off the throne and place him in power. In return, Constantinople would support the new Crusade into Jerusalem. Of course, the Crusaders simply sacked the city and took power for themselves.

 

[Qingu]

To understand weakening "family bonds" you would probably have to change the way in which you understand the word "family". When I mentioned this I was primarily thinking about Greece, and the "polis." To a Greek, loyalties were a ladder of responsibilities.

So you weren't talking about family bonds—you were talking about arete and loyalty to the city-state. Please don't accuse me of misunderstanding you when you used the wrong word.

A Greek was loyal to his family, his clan, his polis(community), and when necessary the Greek kingdom itself.

What Greek Kingdom are you referring to, the fictional one in the Illiad?

When this structure began to break down, as it did during the time of Plato, it weakened the foundation of Athenian civilization. I suppose I could quote you portions of Plato's Republic where this exact scenario is mentioned, but I don't have the book handy at the moment. If you want I will post them later.

I'd love to see you post them, and support any of your claims.

An expanding empire doesn't equate to a stable society.

Oh, we're only talking about stability?

Then you are correct. An expanding empire with a civilization producing more art, literature, and philosophical works than at any other point in history is less "stable" than a bunch of illiterate savages behind a mile-high wall. What on earth is your point? You weren't talking about stability, you were talking about civilizations falling from grace.

As for Plutarch, he was an historian. If you read Life of Demetrius, Life of Agis, and Life of Cleomenes, it explores in great detail the changes in Athenian society.

He lived in the first century.

The reason all of that is related to Rome is because the same scenarios played out there as well. Not to mention that Rome adopted the Hellenistic world, from which all of this is derived.

Rome adopted a Hellenistic view before it even became an empire. You're seriously trying to correlate this ideology to its fall?

As for religion, I don't remember asserting that simply being "religious" was a formula for a successful state.

Ah, but that's what this ridiculous argument is always about with you Christians, isn't it? Maybe not on the surface, but every time I hear some Christian try to blame the fall of Rome on homosexuality, or atheism, what they're really saying is that this is what's going to happen to America unless we all start believing in Jesus a lot more. Is this in fact what you're saying, or am I being unfair?

The primary formula for a successful state, IMO, is strong family and community bonds. Why? Because without them you stand for nothing.

Ah, yes. Because everyone without kids or parents has no friends or ideals.

You become an individual. Individualism isn't a healthy philosophy for a successful state. Not in the long run.

While I'm truly, truly shocked that a religious person is arguing for increased social control, I'm still looking forward to any sort of support for this ridiculous statement. Even a correlation between individualism and failing societies.

So far you've cited historians, whose testimonies actually didn't correlate to failing states. I'm genuinely curious as to why you expect anyone to believe anything you say.

 

[Keltoi]

So you weren't talking about family bonds—you were talking about arete and loyalty to the city-state. Please don't accuse me of misunderstanding you when you used the wrong word.


What Greek Kingdom are you referring to, the fictional one in the Illiad?


I'd love to see you post them, and support any of your claims.


Oh, we're only talking about stability?

Then you are correct. An expanding empire with a civilization producing more art, literature, and philosophical works than at any other point in history is less "stable" than a bunch of illiterate savages behind a mile-high wall. What on earth is your point? You weren't talking about stability, you were talking about civilizations falling from grace.


He lived in the first century.


Rome adopted a Hellenistic view before it even became an empire. You're seriously trying to correlate this ideology to its fall?


Ah, but that's what this ridiculous argument is always about with you Christians, isn't it? Maybe not on the surface, but every time I hear some Christian try to blame the fall of Rome on homosexuality, or atheism, what they're really saying is that this is what's going to happen to America unless we all start believing in Jesus a lot more. Is this in fact what you're saying, or am I being unfair?


Ah, yes. Because everyone without kids or parents has no friends or ideals.


While I'm truly, truly shocked that a religious person is arguing for increased social control, I'm still looking forward to any sort of support for this ridiculous statement. Even a correlation between individualism and failing societies.

So far you've cited historians, whose testimonies actually didn't correlate to failing states. I'm genuinely curious as to why you expect anyone to believe anything you say.

It would be far more interesting to debate something with you if your posts weren't full of arrogant nonsense. I know you have a problem with religious people, but this topic isn't about religion or the fact that I'm a Christian.

I was referring to the family, the family is part of the community, and Greek loyalties formed a ladder of responsibility, as I mentioned before. The family is the basis of this ladder.

Which Greek kingdom am I referring to? Well, the most notable would be Athens, but there were others, such as Thebes, Sparta, etc. Did you seriously not know any Greek states or were you simply being sarcastically arrogant again?

I also don't remember mentioning homosexuality or athiesm. Do you just pull these out of your bag of tricks in order to feign some kind of self-righteous outrage?

The first thing you must consider when discussing any empire or successful civilization are the attributes that led to their rise in power. For the Greeks and Romans, it was a combination of social discipline and military discipline. By social discipline I'm referring to law and order. This law and order was the foundation of their society, from the top of the ladder to the smallest family unit. When family structure starts to break down, that naturally leads to more break down further up the ladder. Plato's Republic is a fairly lengthy treatise on justice, starting with the individual and on to the city-state itself. While I don't agree with Plato's dream of a kingdom led by philosopher-kings, I think he makes the point quite well throughout that individuals will doom the state unless they work to keep that social network strong. You don't have to agree, but perhaps you have a theory as to what strengthens a nation-state?

As for Plutarch, yes he lived during the 1st century, but his histories are fairly good at describing Athens and Rome and the politics of these cities.

 

[Qingu]

I was referring to the family, the family is part of the community, and Greek loyalties formed a ladder of responsibility, as I mentioned before. The family is the basis of this ladder.

No. You are equivocating family bonds with the Greek concept of arete, excellence/honor, which entailed devotion to the polis.

Which Greek kingdom am I referring to? Well, the most notable would be Athens, but there were others, such as Thebes, Sparta, etc. Did you seriously not know any Greek states or were you simply being sarcastically arrogant again?

You said "the Greek kingdom itself," an entity above and beyond the polis. There was no Greek kingdom. Though some individual city-states were monarchies.

Athens was not a kingdom.

I also don't remember mentioning homosexuality or athiesm. Do you just pull these out of your bag of tricks in order to feign some kind of self-righteous outrage?

Perhaps I was being hasty. You don't have a problem with homosexuality or atheism?

The first thing you must consider when discussing any empire or successful civilization are the attributes that led to their rise in power. For the Greeks and Romans, it was a combination of social discipline and military discipline.

Interesting you'd leave out their technology and philosophy.

Plato's Republic is a fairly lengthy treatise on justice, starting with the individual and on to the city-state itself. While I don't agree with Plato's dream of a kingdom led by philosopher-kings, I think he makes the point quite well throughout that individuals will doom the state unless they work to keep that social network strong.

Please tell me you are not actually deriving your social theory from Plato.

You don't have to agree, but perhaps you have a theory as to what strengthens a nation-state?

Innovation, beyond anything else.

We can start with the Greeks' very concept of the polis—a political and ideological innovation—and move on throughout history, from the Romans' willingness to absorb superior Greek traditions and redefine themselves around them, to the Europeans' mastery of natural philosophy and economics, to America's radical new doctrine of individual liberty and democracy.

A society unwilling to let its populace change the status quo will grow stagnant and die.

 

[Keltoi]

You are correct on the issue of the word "kingdom", that was a poor choice of words to describe the overall Greek political situation. Perhaps allied states or something along those lines would have been a better description.

As for homosexuality and athiesm, I believe in secular government regardless of my faith. Personally, while my religion may frown upon the practice of these I believe all people should have equal rights and protections under the law.

As for technology and philosophy, these were obviously great contributions. The issue isn't what they left behind, but why they had to "leave them behind" at all.

As for my social theory, no it is not derived from Plato. I use Plato only in the context of discussing Greek political philosophy...I wouldn't even say that I have a social theory. Just musings.

Lastly, as for innovation, I would agree that it is important, especially in the economic sense. However, its when the economy falters that the fabric of society is actually tested. I would agree that alot of it comes down to political policy, but I think the overall state of society dictates the kind of leaders that come to power. Not only their character but also the kinds of policies the people will support.