The destruction of a Library: myths and facts

That sounds extremely plausible.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

ahhh, i always loved Red Skelton and that brings back a flood o memories

 

I wouldn't expect them to preserve contrary material, nor would I expect pagans to do so. It's not at all surprising that they did the wrong thing... it's only in relatively recent times that preservation of scholarship has really been given its due. But the past suppression and/or neglect was still wrong (barring a radical cultural relativism about morality, which I would reject).

I'd better contribute a coin to the thread! How about a couple of emperors who tried in vain to dam the inexorable waters of Christianity, increasing state support for pagan scholarship:

Julian II the Apostate


Eugenius (a Christian, but admirably ecumenical, though it was probably Arbogast calling the shots):

 

Herberto, thank you. Just a little elaboration and tuck-pointing if you will in an area I'm academically-credentialled in, although by no means a scholar...

Just in elaboration on this point. It's true, I believe, this is probably the major reason Socrates was convicted by the Athenian Democracy. One might find that somewhat counterintuitive. That is to say, Athens being a democracy, as opposed to monarchy or aristocracy. However, Plato elucidated the reason well, right out of the gate, in the opening dialogue in The Republic (circa, 411BC), wherein he brought to light the essential political problem in a pure democracy, that being, tyranny by the majority. A pure democracy is tyranny by the majority of the minority and minority viewpoints, by sheer numbers, or, i.e., popular vote. What made this conviction particularly necessary was that Athens and Athena were one, in the Greek mind. That is to say, the Greek mind had no concept of "church and state," as we do, today. When Socrates attacked these Greek gods and goddesses as but comic-book superheroes, to the Greek mind, he was attacking the body politic, as well.

As an aside, the real thing that did Socrates in was, he was what we'd call, today, a "gadfly." He had a way of biting you. He'd start you out in a discussion on a position, then he'd take you around, full-circle, ending you up advocating the exact opposite position you had advocated at the start. That pissed a lot of these citizens off, as it made fools of them. This is also how he introduced philosophy, i.e., thinking, to his students. As such, corruption of the youth was the other charge brought by the state.

I hope you know by now what I'm going to say, here. Socrates was philosophy. That was, in fact, the reason he had to go. He caused the citizens to philosophize, i.e., to question the prevailing belief system, i.e., to think. And, in a pure democracy, you do that, you go, Jackson, I don't care who you are.

 

You 'go' Eddie........ As political as you can get in these parts........

 

Lol. But thank you, Dear Sir. I try hard, anyway.

 

.. i believe Socrates told the prevailing jury at his trial that he wouldn't lay down and "be good" made reference to himself on the government and public as a biting fly on a lazy horse, biting here there everywhere.. but if he hada layed down, he would've just been another runodemillphilokindoguy and NOT the father of the school of thought..

 

Yup. He could have broke jail, too. Crito paid off the guard, and was arranged to get him out, and he didn't go for it. He'd stuck to his belief in the legal process, however corrupt, or disagreeable, to the end. He was justly convicted and sentenced, and that was that. What a legacy this man left us...

 

i hadn't ever heard of that about Crito.. (one of his followers?). kool story.

 

Here is a shortened version: https://www.cliffsnotes.com/literat...y-crito-and-phaedo/summary-and-analysis/crito

 

ok, i'll finish reading that later, it's very good, thanks Bing.

 

Interesting discussion and coins.

I need to get into the primary sources more but with all things people will have differing opinions and draw different conclusions.

 

I owe much of my sceptical and critical thinking skills to Carl Sagan. He is missed.

 

I have always pondered over what had to be re-learned over time because of the destruction of the Library. Think of the works of Archimedes - can you imagine having the originals?

 

I have read Gibbons, but I have read MANY other accounts. I never relied on Gibbons as a source, rather my many other readings.

I still call them the "Dark Ages" for the Western part of the Roman Empire after it fell... I am not sure that I would enjoy living during that time and location compared to the Civilization that Rome espoused in that area PRIOR to the Fall of the West. In my view the Roman System brought LIGHT to many parts of the world that they touched.

I do not state this in ignorance, rather as a comparative perspective from a layman's point of view.

 

Let's also not forget that Socrates could have easily fled after his conviction, which we learn in the Phaedo! He chose to stay. That's why the term for the poison he took is pharmakon. It shouldn't be translated directly as poison.

 

You might at least enjoy living in Theodoric's Italy. I'm not up to speed with all of the sources but from what I've read it was a pretty prosperous and stable place. Theodoric was a great patron of Roman culture (he was sent as a hostage to Constantinople in his youth) and made every effort to preserve it within his kingdom. He gave real power back to the Roman Senate after centuries without it under the empire, and he established good relations with the less-Romanized Germanic peoples. Theodoric valued the expertise of the Romans in running a working government (which the Germanic peoples lacked), and so he kept them in high positions to administer his kingdom. He was a tolerant ruler who promoted peace and equality as well.

Give me Theodoric's "Dark Ages" (a term I disagree with, by the way) Italy over living under more uncertain and dangerous times during Roman rule like the mid-late 3rd century.

 

I am enjoying this thread. Gives one something to think about.

 

That depends on what exactly you are suggesting, and how long you decide to stretch the timeline of the so-called “Dark Ages” as many scholars are beginning to avoid that term for obvious reasons. Nobody denies that the collapse of a Roman state in west was a huge blow in the large end with some few exception. What is denied is that Dark Ages did not last for 1000 years as Western Europe certainly started to progress around year 800 CE and onwards, and that it definitely did not entail all Europe giving that the Eastern Roman Empire survived and its institutions as well.

(1)So if you are suggesting that after the collapse of Western Roman Empire a 1000 years of stagnation found place and that Europe suddenly awoke in Renaissance then you are not approximately close to what the academia is stating for the reasons mentioned above, and as the concept of “Renaissance” pretty much was a continuation of Middle Ages, and as it was a discourse made by Burkhardt, whose theories neither are accepted these days.

(2)But if you are suggesting that after the collapse of Western Roman Empire a decline did find place in the first 2-3 centuries but that It otherwise started to progress around year 800 CE and that there were innovative (re)inventions in the fields of architecture, philosophy, agriculture and science, and that Byzantium did not experience a Dark Ages in the aftermath of the fall Western Roman Empire then I agree with you.

Since you are saying that you don’t rely on the outdated Gibbon, and that you are a layman I assume you meant the second. If not, then there is something contradicting and I would like to know what your “other readings” are.

 

Good point! Thank you.