Porn, the middle east, and the age of Christianity vs Islam's age

[Mike Cl]

The contribution of print is a slow and an indirect one.

-Very few people are literate. It's mostly limited to clergy and the aristocracy.
- There is no language unification or standards. The dialects of 15th century Europe are vernaculas that are very different from each other. Latin is the lingua franca, the common language. Standards will come after 1789. There is no German or a French or an Italian language in 15th century. Most dominant vernaclars are Italian and Castilian (What we know today as Spanish.) For example, you are not talking in Italian in 15 th century. You are either speaking in Tuscony or Venetian or Neapolitan or Florantine or Roman. German is the worst case. Dialects are so different, there is almost no communication between regions and this creates a crisis, also prolongs the usage of Latin in administration and education and causes a famous reaction. It's not random that first bible in vernacular came from the 'German' speaking world.  When Luther nailed his Ninety-Five Theses to the All Saints Church's door, the language he used wasn't 'German', it was Saxony, because he spoke Saxony. He knew this, and all the issues with vernaculars and 'languages' and reaching to people; the deliberate actions of the Roman Catholic Church to keep people ignorant and that's why he did it. He also published his bible in Saxony with the chancery standart of his time. Today, German is still the least unified language in Europe. 

The idea that printing contributed to standardisation of languages -and so to general development- as a virtually automatic outcome of the mass production after Gutenberg is a false one. There are so many other things going on with languages and communication, accumulation of knowledge... etc. it is going in circles, not linear.

There are also no conscious politics that is leading to some development before French Revolution. Only what monarchs and their statemen do to stay in power. They are not reacting to issues and problems to solve. They react to provide dominance and order. For example, what Cardinal Richelieu did to impose French language -and also Louis the XIVth- is just imposing politics to gain dominance. Not conscious policies. But, did they succeed? Yes.

Christianity didn't have some stronger other to run against.

And to add.  For most of the history of this world, illiteracy was the norm.  And for most of the history of the Catholic church, the laity were not allowed to read the bible--and many of the priests were allowed to only read part of it themselves.  The priesthood informed the people of what they wanted them to know.  Most people today, don't read the bible or whatever their holy writings are--they leave that to the priests and simply do what they are told to do.  That is what all religious hierarchies strive for; that's how they maintain their control.

[drunkenshoe]

And to add.  For most of the history of this world, illiteracy was the norm.  And for most of the history of the Catholic church, the laity were not allowed to read the bible--and many of the priests were allowed to only read part of it themselves.  The priesthood informed the people of what they wanted them to know.  Most people today, don't read the bible or whatever their holy writings are--they leave that to the priests and simply do what they are told to do.  That is what all religious hierarchies strive for; that's how they maintain their control.

Yep, it's very easy to exploit ignorant people. Before Abrahamic religions, priests of pagan religions did the same. If you keep the herds ignorant, you'll play them however you want.

How to make minions 101.

[aitm]

As I said, the "push" for compulsory eduction started in the late 1500's, while largely religious the push for educating the masses was in the move in the early 1600', where basic reading and math was taught. One must remember that in order for mass eduction to work, you need more teachers and more teachers inevitably will come from the mass public. While certainly people can and did wish to remain ignorant, many continued to look for more in the ways of science. Education in any form is a little better than nothing. The great schisms of christianity came about due to skepticism of the verses as more and more people were able to understand the babble.

The greatest scientists of those days had little choice but to attend religious indoctrinated universities, but that didn't stop them from learning and spreading rational thought and asking the questions that were the precursors of the next generation of "rebels"

[Shiranu]

Call me a heretic, but I feel that atheists tend to have this very biased view that scientists were (and are) all that influential, or at least just-as influential, then the slew of huge name reformists who weren't (and aren't) scientists.

It wasn't the science of John Locke or Descartes that lead to change, but the philosophy. Spinoza and Rousseau were huge influences on the secularization of the society, and yet they were not scientists at all. Nor were Voltaire, Hume, Petrarca scientists. And men like Martin Luther and Henry VIII caused huge rifts in the church and changed the idea of the infallibility of the church.

The Renaissance's greatest influence on secularization had almost nothing to do with science, and I'm not sure why people consider that a huge part of it. The hugest thing was a rediscovering of the Greek classics that emphasized the beauty of man. And during this time you see art boom with murals and paintings and sculptures that exalt man as this divine being, which was a huge shift from the previous hundreds of years in Christdom where man was worthless and pathetic to god.

I'm not saying science doesn't play a part, it certainly does, but it is education in general and, more importantly, art and philosophy that have had extreme influences on the changing mindset of society since the medieval times.

I think we want to look at society and said, "Factor A + B caused the change", whereas the simple truth is that society is never as simple as that. It is more like, "Factor A, B, C, D, E, F, G... AA, BBB, CCCCCC, GGGGGGGGGG, all combined, changed society.".

[PickelledEggs]

I figured the question I hilighted was a decent question on the basis of:

If you look at the people that believe in Christianity, for instance the people that believe it in the U.S., There are only a select few that believe it completely literally. There is a much higher percentage of people that see their belief in christianity as only a spiritual fulfilment thing and a comfort thing, without even knowing what it is. Most of these people that identify as moderate christians that I'm talking about, that only identify as christians don't even agree with the bigotry promoted in it. In fact, aside from the issue of "is religion a force for good" they would probably agree on every humanist position.

I know quite a few of these people, and while it frustrates me to see their moderate christianity enable more fundamentalist beliefs for other people because in their mind: "a belief should be respected and not mocked"... I would take a moderate religious person over a fundamental religious person any day of the week.

----

There seems to be a lower percentage of moderate muslims, but I guess it's not because Islam needed more time to get out of it's immaturaty stage, it's that the belief itself doesn't not allow nearly as much progress in thinking?

That's what I'm trying to understand.

[drunkenshoe]

As I said, the "push" for compulsory eduction started in the late 1500's, while largely religious the push for educating the masses was in the move in the early 1600', where basic reading and math was taught.

There are no education in 16th century to influence massive movement or masses on the move or some 'push' for education in 15th century Europe that we could define as a basic education act.

People do not need to learn to get a basic education for an uprising. They are already starving.

A very small percentage of common children get that some basic education. And they are boys of families who can pay a fee to their landlord given that they are not starving, runing away from some civil war or uprising.

There are no standards in education, nor any conscious policies to make one. People are responsible from their own children's education. And whatever can be provided in the monasteries or churches is a religious education. They are not distributing math teachers around. Nobles can get education to their children which is minority.

The notion of seeing Renaissance as a dawn of modernity as opposed to the horrible dark ages is an exaggerated, postmodern idea. Renaissance is not a conscious, homogenic period covering all around. It's a movement that occurred under specific political and economical circumstances in a specific region. What spread around is different for everywhere and doesn't change anything for the peoples of the lands. 

[trdsf]

The contribution of print is a slow and an indirect one.

-Very few people are literate. It's mostly limited to clergy and the aristocracy.
- There is no language unification or standards. The dialects of 15th century Europe are vernaculas that are very different from each other. Latin is the lingua franca, the common language. Standards will come after 1789. There is no German or a French or an Italian language in 15th century. Most dominant vernaclars are Italian and Castilian (What we know today as Spanish.) For example, you are not talking in Italian in 15 th century. You are either speaking in Tuscony or Venetian or Neapolitan or Florantine or Roman. German is the worst case. Dialects are so different, there is almost no communication between regions and this creates a crisis, also prolongs the usage of Latin in administration and education and causes a famous reaction. It's not random that first bible in vernacular came from the 'German' speaking world.  When Luther nailed his Ninety-Five Theses to the All Saints Church's door, the language he used wasn't 'German', it was Saxony, because he spoke Saxony. He knew this, and all the issues with vernaculars and 'languages' and reaching to people; the deliberate actions of the Roman Catholic Church to keep people ignorant and that's why he did it. He also published his bible in Saxony with the chancery standart of his time. Today, German is still the least unified language in Europe.

The idea that printing contributed to standardisation of languages -and so to general development- as a virtually automatic outcome of the mass production after Gutenberg is a false one. There are so many other things going on with languages and communication, accumulation of knowledge... etc. it is going in circles, not linear.

And the lag between the introduction of the movable type press and the start of the Inquisition was several decades, not several minutes.  Communications in the 15th century were not instantaneous.

I don't know where your points about language standardization come from.  I wasn't talking about the standardization of languages, I was talking about the spread of ideas.  The historical fragmentation of language groups didn't prevent that, it only slowed it, and in any case as you point out Latin was the lingua franca of those who were literate and learned.  Especially among the clergy.

In any case, it is precisely the clergy and the aristocracy that Rome would have been most worried about because they controlled the local populations, so the church needed to control them.  Need I remind you that Luther was a Roman Catholic priest at the time of the 95 Theses?

There are also no conscious politics that is leading to some development before French Revolution. Only what monarchs and their statemen do to stay in power. They are not reacting to issues and problems to solve. They react to provide dominance and order. For example, what Cardinal Richelieu did to impose French language -and also Louis the XIVth- is just imposing politics to gain dominance. Not conscious policies. But, did they succeed? Yes.

How is "what monarchs and their statement do to stay in power" not conscious politics?  Practical politics have been practiced by leaders at all levels functionally since the invention of cities.  I don't know why you place an arbitrary dividing line at the French revolution -- sixteen years after the American revolution, which, at least over here, was not about preserving the power of the monarchy.

Christianity didn't have some stronger other to run against.

Christianity was in the middle of the development of the Protestant Reformation -- Luther didn't start the ball rolling, he's just where we can place a clear line saying 'this is where the schism occurred'.  John Wycliffe (another Roman Catholic priest) in England, though he had died in 1384, had so irritated the church with his anti-hierarchical (and worse, influential) teachings that the pope ordered his remains dug up and burned... in 1428, 44 years later.  Jan Hus (yet another Roman Catholic priest -- see what I mean about the clergy, above?) of Bohemia was executed in 1415, but his movement wasn't effectively squashed until 1620.  And there was the Western Schism going on -- multiple popes all claiming legitimacy (each claimant backed for political far more than spiritual reasons) and not settled on a single line until nearly 1430.

It was doing a damned good job of running against itself, so when you throw in the late mini-Crusades of Nicopolis, Varna and Otranto against the Muslim Ottoman Empire -- the last being in the 1480s -- and the Hussite Crusade referenced above, it's hard to support the idea of a church that wasn't besieged on all fronts: militarily, politically and philosophically.  Christianity in the 1400s was well beset internally and externally, so it's probably not surprising that it reacted violently once it felt it had regained its equilibrium.

[drunkenshoe]

And the lag between the introduction of the movable type press and the start of the Inquisition was several decades, not several minutes.  Communications in the 15th century were not instantaneous.

Several decades of a time span in that time suggests immediate connection. However, movable type press didn't have the  influence you think, because just printing as small book took months. And the reason I talked about languages is that there are NO 'languages' in 15th century as we understand today. Illiteracy is the norm. Without a standard langauge, an already literate society, printing is not a immediate threat to the clergy or to the Church to react in several decades. It's about the general power. It's the greatest power and it has to gain more to continue its existence. If it doesn't, power will change hands.

Even that was the case, with the printing there should have been an enormous project of translation which alone would take decades, -and to what vernacular in a region?- but couldn't have because a very few people knew different vernaculars in a level to translate some idea book into another one. Because all communication goes in Latin. Practically, it is impossible.

For example, English was not even in the vernacular race in 15 or 16th century. Because nobody needed to understand English. Embassadors speak Latin.

I don't know where your points about language standardization come from.  I wasn't talking about the standardization of languages, I was talking about the spread of ideas.

How do you think ideas spread? Spreading of ideas, actually more than that invention of ideas; emergence of ideas is directly based on competion of early modern European vernaculars; their competion with Latin. And finally standardisation of languages.

The historical fragmentation of language groups didn't prevent that, it only slowed it, ...

When you say 'historical fragmentation of language', it suggests that there was actually a standard, a series of standard languages as we understand today, but then something happened and they got fragmented.

That's not the case. Again, there are no 'languages' in Europe in 15th century, but vernaculars and their communities. There is no slowing down or speeding up. This is not a deterministic process. It's not linear. Even after spreading of printed books in vernaculars, usage of Latin continues -though it is declining of course-  the ideas are still limited to the educated minority. Church still has a great hold on on people. And will for  aloooong time.

There is also a big process of creating new words, neologisms, again standardisation attempts which is directly influenced by puritanism. Because the idea of purism in language is anthropologically based in the idea of purism in religion.

This is actually a big bloody 'war' and shaped the road to the development of Western culture. In the end, some vernaculars died, some survived, some became languages. For example, French became the new 'lingua franca'  and then declined, today we have English. And all that is happened between a period 1452-1789.

and in any case as you point out Latin was the lingua franca of those who were literate and learned.  Especially among the clergy.

Yes, I know that. I have said that a couple of times in my posts in this thread and the reason that I mentioned in my answer to yours because it is related to vernacular usage. That introduction of print didn't do much in several decades. 

In any case, it is precisely the clergy and the aristocracy that Rome would have been most worried about because they controlled the local populations, so the church needed to control them.  Need I remind you that Luther was a Roman Catholic priest at the time of the 95 Theses?

Err...yes I have said this too. (I wish you looked at my other posts.) Anyway, if he wasn't a Catholic priest he wouldn't have known the main means of control and wouldn't react to it. This is exactly the reason why he did such a thing and he started something very important. Something beyond Reformation. Linguistic model. E: (Another one is 'caused' by Erasmus which is called Erasmian Solution) And the fact that in his region, 'German' speaking world there was a true chaos; a 'Babel' about the vernaculars contributed to his point.

Martin Luther can be a Catholic priest. That doesn't change the fact that he influenced a style of literature in European history, which today is defined as 'Lutheran solution' that played a key role in spreading ideas, which is directly based of him using his mother tongue. Lutheran solution is an answer to the 'the language question' which is called 'La questione della lingua' because Italians were the first one to express it. From his own texts, we also know he did this very consciously. He also writes about vernaculars, languages and Latin usage and how to reach people. That is his concern. This is very important. "Fuck the clergy, fuck the court; what about people?"

How is "what monarchs and their statement do to stay in power" not conscious politics?  Practical politics have been practiced by leaders at all levels functionally since the invention of cities.

I said: "They are not reacting to issues and problems to solve. They react to provide dominance and order." Did you miss that?

No, it is NOT. There is a very big difference between producing conscious policies to solve problems in a region AND politics monarchs produce so their house or dynasty could stay in power.

The former one is the quality of the modern state that came after 1789. The other is as old as human and we still suffrer from it. However, after the invention of the modern state; producing conscious policies for people became neccessary and also beneficial and profitable to the state itself. When that tipping point is passed, you have a developing culture.

This is how STATE and CHURCH got seperated. Before that there is no policy to serve people; to 'nurture' them; to secularise peoples of the lands; civil rights; individualism. Laicism and as a result secularism of the society. In the US, you people call the whole process 'secularism'.

The orginal French idea is that in building laicism the modern state will cause secularism, because there will be a standard in everything. Language, education, law, civil rights...etc. And that's what happened in the West. This is how the West became secular.

I don't know why you place an arbitrary dividing line at the French revolution --

I am not putting an arbitrary boundry just because it poped out in my mind. According to the modern historical thought, there are no conscious policies before the modern state; French Revolution.  If there are rare ones, we need to emphasize their special circumstances, because it is not the rule, but the exception. Monarchies and Chruch do not solve problems. They assure their dominance in expense of anything possible. Don't let the word 'policies' and 'politics' confuse you. In short, it is not my personal idea.

...sixteen years after the American revolution, which, at least over here, was not about preserving the power of the monarchy.

The US is pretty much irrelavent about the development of secular ideas in this period. (1452-1789) I was talking about Europe.


I removed the paragraph you wrote about reformation. It seems you completely misunderstood what I wrote and the reason for that is, I think you couldn't connect the language issues with spreading of ideas. Which is crucial. I thought you would connect it instantly, that's why I didn't write anything in detail. 

But we actually agree overall. Because my main point was there is no standard education, language or conscioulsy spreading secular ideas before the modern state in the West.

[eylul]

Middle-East is suck about porn. I wish that they could watch porn easyly. Because Turkish people try to fuck carboy, duck, donkey, cow etc.

[Mike Cl]

Middle-East is suck about porn. I wish that they could watch porn easyly. Because Turkish people try to fuck carboy, duck, donkey, cow etc.

Really?  They do that here too, but I'm not really all that familiar with it. 

[eylul]

Really?  They do that here too, but I'm not really all that familiar with it.

Ahh yes unfortunately. And more. You cant wear mini-skirt in here, if you wear it means that you could be raped and the government and a few artists say that you deserve it. I am in hell, nobody knows it :?

[Mike Cl]

Ahh yes unfortunately. And more. You cant wear mini-skirt in here, if you wear it means that you could be raped and the government and a few artists say that you deserve it. I am in hell, nobody knows it :?

That seems to be the way with most religions.  And cultures.  There are all kinds of taboos.  Seems like you have the mind of a freethinker trapped in very closed society.  Is it possible for you to move to a European country?  Scandinavia?  Or the US or Canada?

[Shiranu]

Ahh yes unfortunately. And more. You cant wear mini-skirt in here, if you wear it means that you could be raped and the government and a few artists say that you deserve it. I am in hell, nobody knows it :?

If it makes you feel any better... the part of the United States I live in, the family I live in, would agree that wearing mini-skirts means you had getting raped coming.

[eylul]

That seems to be the way with most religions.  And cultures.  There are all kinds of taboos.  Seems like you have the mind of a freethinker trapped in very closed society.  Is it possible for you to move to a European country?  Scandinavia?  Or the US or Canada?

I am studying Chemical Engineering. And its possible to move for university those sountries. They use Nuclear Santrals and they need us. But its hard to make a decision. And i dont have enough english to live i think.

[eylul]

If it makes you feel any better... the part of the United States I live in, the family I live in, would agree that wearing mini-skirts means you had getting raped coming.

To be honest, it made me sad :/