Talk:World History Lecture Four

From Conservapedia

Julius Caesar was not an emperor as stated in the Other Reasons for the Fall of the Roman Empire section. The highest title he assumed was dictator (for life).

Intellectual Achievements

"The Romans are not known for their intellectual achievements." I beg to differ. By definition, the first 4 centuries of the development of Christian thought and the organisation of the Church were by Romans. The whole intellectual base for both secular and canon law that was to underpin society during the middle ages and last into modern times was Roman. From Roman poets and philosophers, historians, theologians, lawyers, we walk upon the shoulders of Roman intellectual creativity. AlanE 16:41, 19 February 2009 (EST)

For nearly 1000 years of domination, I hope you can come up with something more specific than that. In a fraction of the time the Greeks achieved infinitely more intellectually.--Andy Schlafly 17:09, 19 February 2009 (EST)

Yes, they did, I agree. The Athenian half-century is unique and wonderful and completely unchallenged as a period of intellectual achievement. Beside the Greeks, everyone is left behind for so much packed into so little time. But we can't say that the Romans had no intellectual achievements. The work of St Augustine, of Gregory the Great, of Justinian, to name just three, have had as big an impact on European thought as Plato or Aristotle who did not gain much traction until the Renaissance. There are as many copies of Cicero, Ovid, Tacitus, Boethius, Marcus Aurelius, Pliny, Horace, Catullus, on shelves (mine anyway) as there are of the Greeks. The whole intellectual weight of the Medieval western church rested on a Roman intellectual base, in its organisation, its ecclesiastical laws, its language and, of course, the centre of its authority.

I am in no way meaning to denigrate the Greeks, just to argue that there is a recognised intellectual component in the Roman Empire that is alive today - especially noticeable in the development of the Christian Church and the Law. AlanE 18:00, 19 February 2009 (EST)

I don't think the Romans even had the concept of "truth".--Andy Schlafly 23:07, 19 February 2009 (EST)

Then what is veritas? As in veritas vos liberabit. AlanE 00:19, 20 February 2009 (EST)

I find in vino veritas to be a more of a "true" statement ;) An interesting article on veritas is here.--Recorder 12:07, 20 February 2009 (EST)

This inevitably depends on definitions of truth. Without wanting to put words into Mr Schlafly's mouth, I presume he is referring to a higher truth than the simply truth/falsity of a statement; this could be compared to the difference between 'faith' used as a synonym for any form of belief, and the specific theological concept of faith. Also the Romans of Augustus' day were very different, culturally, from the later, Christian Roman empire.--CPalmer 12:19, 20 February 2009 (EST)

We have now moved away from the question of Roman intellectual achievement (which I say is great because, if nothing else, it is the foundation on which is built the whole edifice of law and jurisprudence under which we all live, no matter which oceans wash our shores) to one of the philosophical or theological import of a word. In both of them perhaps Andy should have made clear whether he was talking about Christian or Pagan Rome; and whether he meant Rome the city, or Rome the Empire. On the original discussion, might I just say that my life would have been poorer without the translations of Virgil, Horace, Catullus, Ovid, Cicero, Marcus Aurelius, Caesar, Pliny and Tacitus (all pagans) that have accompanied me at times through life. (And maybe I should add Plutarch who although Greek, lived within the Roman culture and wrote about Roman lives as much as he did Greek.)

On the subject of truth, this higher truth, Cicero discussed it more than once. In "On Fate" he discoursed on man's use of free will and the role of truth within it.AlanE 14:50, 20 February 2009 (EST)

Pontius Pilate, who was no dummy, had no understanding of the concept of truth. Can you quote something that you think demonstrates Roman appreciation of the concept of truth?--Andy Schlafly 15:17, 20 February 2009 (EST)

• For nowhere does a man retreat into more quiet or more privacy than into his own mind, especially one who has within such things that he has only to look into, and become at once in perfect ease; and by ease I mean nothing else but good behaviour. Continually therefore grant yourself this retreat and repair yourself. But let them be brief and fundamental truths, which will suffice at once by their presence to wash away all sorrow, and to send you back without repugnance to the life to which you return. (Marcus Aurelius.
• For there is one Universe out of all, one God through all, one substance and one law, one common Reason of all intelligent creatures and one Truth. M. Aurelius
• One thing here is of great price, to live out life with truth and righteousness. M. Aurelius
• Time discovers truth. Seneca, Moral essays
• The language of truth is simple. Seneca
• Enhance and intensify one's vision of that synthesis of truth and beauty which is the highest and deepest reality. Ovid
• The first duty of a man is the seeking after and the investigation of truth. Cicero

AlanE 15:59, 20 February 2009 (EST)

I'd like to learn more about Roman philosophy, but my impression is that Ancient Rome was stronger in government than in philosophy. I can't think of a single Roman philosopher - unless he's more famous for his theories of government. It is rather Ancient Greece which produced the best known, most influential philosophers. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Pythagoras, Archimedes, etc. (note that I include scientists because in those days science was philosophy.)

Anyway, Pontius Pilate didn't do anything to help Jesus when the Jewish leaders rejected him and wanted him executed as "The Passion (movie)" illustrates so well. My hero rather is Socrates, who died for the truth. --Ed Poor ^Talk 17:38, 20 February 2009 (EST)

Ed, yes it was stronger in government than philosophy, but I don't think anyone here has tried to insinuate in any way that it had the edge over the Greeks, especially Socrates, in pre-Christian thought, but no list of great philosophers would be complete without Cicero and Marcus Aurelius to name but two. The quotes I supplied above were in direct reply to Andy's request for Roman appreciation of the truth. Bringing in Pontius Pilate - especially the Mel Gibson version - doesn't quite work. We know next to nothing about whether he was a fair representation of a Roman governor and whether any of them were chosen for there ability to philosophise. AlanE 18:04, 20 February 2009 (EST)

There were no significant Roman philosophers, and the reason is obvious: philosophy is the study of the truth, and Romans didn't even recognize its significance. As to AlanE's list of quotes above, they lack dates. Aurelius, for example, was post-Christianity. By his time Christian insights were widespread in Rome, though not official yet. Perhaps I should have been clearer: I meant pre-Christian or non-Christian Rome.--Andy Schlafly 18:05, 20 February 2009 (EST)

• Yes, Marcus Aurelius was a Stoic philosopher whose Meditations were written in the late second century. Can we assume that all his beliefs were coloured by the nascent Christianity? It may be so, but not necessarily.
• Seneca, who died in AD65 was also a Stoic and is recorded as having died one Many of his statements are so "Christian" in nature that some have tried to insist he may have become so. He was Nero's advisor and did not live a Christian life. He committed suicide.
• Cicero died in 43BC
• (And one that didn't make it from my word document to wiki earlier was Ovid (died AD17) who wrote: Enhance and intensify one's vision of that synthesis of truth and beauty which is the highest and deepest reality. AlanE 18:44, 20 February 2009 (EST)

The point is that the ancient Romans were known for conquering the known Western world and producing the civilization which Arnold Toynbee said gave birth to modern Christendom. They made notable achievements in engineering, and produced some famous writers on history and civic virtue. Andy's not saying they were dullards. But when you think about intellectual contributions, the Pythagorean theorem comes to mind (see right triangle). Then there's Aristotle's formal logic, which 25 centuries later has not been improved upon in the slightest. "Euclid" is synonymous with geometry. I'd say the weight of the balance is largely tipped toward ancient Greece in terms of intellectual achievements.

I have no desire to put down Rome. Instead of debating here (or merely debating here), let's add all the points we've brought up in this most fruitful discussion to the relevant articles. Remember, we're all here to learn as much as to teach. --Ed Poor ^Talk 19:01, 20 February 2009 (EST)

And let's not forget their only invention....cement. :-) AlanE 20:32, 20 February 2009 (EST)

Greek ... philosophy.

Roman ... engineering.

Euclid's Elements are as intellectual as you can get: pure abstract math. But how about those Roman aqueducts? Enough comparing as to who was 'better' in which area. Time to start writing some paragraphs about what each actually did. --Ed Poor ^Talk 20:53, 20 February 2009 (EST)

Once you've done one arch, you've done a thousand. An aqueduct is but an arch replicated as many times as the distance necessitated. The trick was getting the gradient right. What Rome was best at was building on the work of others. It took the innovations of the past and improved them. But it had the nous to take the philosophy of the Greeks and the Stoics and meld it with the new Christianity to make a Church that would withstand the tribulations of the centuries far better than its own institutions could hope to. AlanE 00:23, 21 February 2009 (EST)

Yes, after 300 to 400 years of (often deadly) persecution. Whether this is an intellectual or political achievement is anybody's guess. Can you write about the history of early Christianity? --Ed Poor ^Talk 09:16, 21 February 2009 (EST)

Mornin' Ed. A big subject for a miniaturist like me. Getting the strands together would be interesting. I'll look at it but won't promise. AlanE 14:23, 21 February 2009 (EST)