I don’t see how this brutality was lacking when humans were more religiously observant.
Not much revolutionary or counter-revolutionary terror, no death camps, comparatively little secret police. Little police and policing in general, actually; you could ride from one end of Europe to another without any prior arrangements, and if you looked alright everyone would let you in. The high and mighty being content with merely existing at the top of traditional “divinely ordained” hierarchy and not having the Will zur Macht that enables really serious tyranny, not attempting to forge new meanings and reality while dragging their subjects to violent insanity. I agree that it was a cruel, narrow-minded and miserable world that denied whole classes and races a glimpse of hope without a second thought. But we went from one nightmare through a worse one towards a dubious future. There’s not much to celebrate so far.
Furthermore, the quote seems to argue for religion.
It argues for a thought pattern and attitude to life that Christianity also exhibits at the best of times, but against the belief in supernatural.
Much of this is simply not the case or ignores the largescale other problems. It may help to read Steven Pinker’s book “The Better Angels of Our Nature” which makes clear how murder, and warfare (both large and small) were much more common historically.
I’ve read a summary. I’m mostly playing the devil’s advocate with this argument, to be honest. I have a habit of entertaining my far-type fears perhaps a touch more than they deserve.
Not much revolutionary or counter-revolutionary terror, no death camps, comparatively little secret police.
What exactly was the war on heresy?
The high and mighty being content with merely existing at the top of traditional “divinely ordained” hierarchy
Peasant revolts based on oppressive governance costs didn’t happen?
If we don’t count the denial of a glimpse of hope to “whole classes and races” (and genders) of people, then most of what I personally don’t approve of in the time period drops out. But even if that isn’t included in the ledger, it wasn’t all that great for the vast majority of white Christian men.
Dude, I completely agree. I’m far from a reactionary. I’m just thinking aloud. Might the 20th century have indeed been worse than the above when controlled for the benefits as well as downsides of technical progress? I can’t tell, and everyone’s mind-killed about that—particularly “realist” people like M.M., who claim to be the only sane ones in the asylum.
Let’s cash this out a little bit—Which was worse, the heresy prosecutions of the Medieval era, or the Cultural Revolution? I think the answer is the Cultural Revolution, if for no other reason than more people were affected per year.
But that’s based on technological improvement between the two time periods:
More people were alive in China during the Cultural Revolution because of improvements in food growth, medical technology, and general wealth increase from technology.
The government was able to be more effective and uniform in oppressing others because of improvements in communications technology.
Once we control for those effects, I think it is hard to say which is worse.
In contrast, I think the social changes that led to the end of serious calls for Crusades were a net improvement on human, and I’m somewhat doubtful that technological changes drove those changes (what probably did drive them was that overarching unifying forces like the Papacy lost their legitimacy and power to compel large portions of society). Which isn’t to say that technology doesn’t drive social change (consider the relationship between modern women’s liberation and the development of reliable chemical birth control).
As a percentage of total planetary population, a large number of historical wars were worse than any 20th century atrocity. Pinker has a list in his book, and there are enough that they include wars most modern people have barely heard of.
I’m trying to compare apples to apples here. Wars are not like ideological purity exercises, nor are they like internal political control struggles (i.e. suppressing a peasant revolt, starving the Kulaks).
I’d have to get a better sense of historical wars before I could confidently opine on the relative suffering of the military portions of WWII vs. the military portions of some ancient war. And then I’d have to decide how to compare similar events that took different amounts of time (e.g. WWI v. Hundred Years War)
Keep in mind that to take such ideas seriously and try give them a fair hearing is in itself transgression, regardless if you ultimately reject or embrace them.
At least Copernicus was allowed to recant and live his declining years in (relative) peace.
Nicolaus Copernicus was never charged with heresy (let alone convicted). Moreover, he was a master of canon law, might have been a priest at one point, was urged to publish De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium by cardinals (who also offered to pay his expenses), and dedicated the work to Pope Paul III when he did get around to publishing it. Also, one of his students gave a lecture outlining the Copernican system to a crowd that included Pope Clement VII (for which he was rewarded with an expensive Greek Codex). Even had he lived two more decades, it is very unlikely he would ever have been charged with heresy.
And on that note the Galileo affair was an aberration—it’d be unwise to see it as exemplary of the Church’s general attitude towards unorthodox science. The Church was like half Thomist for Christ’s sake.
And on that note the Galileo affair was an aberration—it’d be unwise to see it as exemplary of the Church’s general attitude towards unorthodox science.
For instance, most instances of heresy were crushed successfully without them bearing fruit or gaining influence. (In some part because most incidences of heresy are actually false theories. Because most new ideas in general are wrong.) The Galileo incident was an epic failure of both religious meme enforcement and public relations. It hasn’t happened often! Usually the little guy loses and nobody cares.
(The above generalises beyond “The Church” to heavy handed belief enforcement by human tribes in general.)
Right, but note I said unorthodox science. Heresy was crushed, but it wasn’t common for scientific theories to be seen as heretical. Galileo just happened to publish his stuff when the Church was highly insecure because of all the Protestant shenanigans. Heretical religious or sociopolitical teachings, on the other hand, were quashed regularly.
Not much revolutionary or counter-revolutionary terror, no death camps, comparatively little secret police. Little police and policing in general, actually; you could ride from one end of Europe to another without any prior arrangements, and if you looked alright everyone would let you in. The high and mighty being content with merely existing at the top of traditional “divinely ordained” hierarchy and not having the Will zur Macht that enables really serious tyranny, not attempting to forge new meanings and reality while dragging their subjects to violent insanity.
I agree that it was a cruel, narrow-minded and miserable world that denied whole classes and races a glimpse of hope without a second thought. But we went from one nightmare through a worse one towards a dubious future. There’s not much to celebrate so far.
It argues for a thought pattern and attitude to life that Christianity also exhibits at the best of times, but against the belief in supernatural.
Much of this is simply not the case or ignores the largescale other problems. It may help to read Steven Pinker’s book “The Better Angels of Our Nature” which makes clear how murder, and warfare (both large and small) were much more common historically.
I’ve read a summary. I’m mostly playing the devil’s advocate with this argument, to be honest. I have a habit of entertaining my far-type fears perhaps a touch more than they deserve.
What exactly was the war on heresy?
Peasant revolts based on oppressive governance costs didn’t happen?
If we don’t count the denial of a glimpse of hope to “whole classes and races” (and genders) of people, then most of what I personally don’t approve of in the time period drops out. But even if that isn’t included in the ledger, it wasn’t all that great for the vast majority of white Christian men.
Dude, I completely agree. I’m far from a reactionary. I’m just thinking aloud. Might the 20th century have indeed been worse than the above when controlled for the benefits as well as downsides of technical progress? I can’t tell, and everyone’s mind-killed about that—particularly “realist” people like M.M., who claim to be the only sane ones in the asylum.
Let’s cash this out a little bit—Which was worse, the heresy prosecutions of the Medieval era, or the Cultural Revolution? I think the answer is the Cultural Revolution, if for no other reason than more people were affected per year.
But that’s based on technological improvement between the two time periods:
More people were alive in China during the Cultural Revolution because of improvements in food growth, medical technology, and general wealth increase from technology.
The government was able to be more effective and uniform in oppressing others because of improvements in communications technology.
Once we control for those effects, I think it is hard to say which is worse.
In contrast, I think the social changes that led to the end of serious calls for Crusades were a net improvement on human, and I’m somewhat doubtful that technological changes drove those changes (what probably did drive them was that overarching unifying forces like the Papacy lost their legitimacy and power to compel large portions of society). Which isn’t to say that technology doesn’t drive social change (consider the relationship between modern women’s liberation and the development of reliable chemical birth control).
As a percentage of total planetary population, a large number of historical wars were worse than any 20th century atrocity. Pinker has a list in his book, and there are enough that they include wars most modern people have barely heard of.
I’m trying to compare apples to apples here. Wars are not like ideological purity exercises, nor are they like internal political control struggles (i.e. suppressing a peasant revolt, starving the Kulaks).
I’d have to get a better sense of historical wars before I could confidently opine on the relative suffering of the military portions of WWII vs. the military portions of some ancient war. And then I’d have to decide how to compare similar events that took different amounts of time (e.g. WWI v. Hundred Years War)
The line between these is not always so clear. Look at the crusade against the Cathars or look at the Reformation wars for example.
I agree that the categories (war, ideological purification, suppression of internal dissent) are not natural kinds.
But issue is separating the effects of ideological change from the effects of technological change, so meaningful comparisons are important.
Keep in mind that to take such ideas seriously and try give them a fair hearing is in itself transgression, regardless if you ultimately reject or embrace them.
You mean then, or now?
Remember what happened to Larry Summers at Harvard when he merely asked the question?
Does the phrase “Denier” cause any mental associations that weren’t there in the late 90s?
At least Copernicus was allowed to recant and live his declining years in (relative) peace.
Nicolaus Copernicus was never charged with heresy (let alone convicted). Moreover, he was a master of canon law, might have been a priest at one point, was urged to publish De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium by cardinals (who also offered to pay his expenses), and dedicated the work to Pope Paul III when he did get around to publishing it. Also, one of his students gave a lecture outlining the Copernican system to a crowd that included Pope Clement VII (for which he was rewarded with an expensive Greek Codex). Even had he lived two more decades, it is very unlikely he would ever have been charged with heresy.
And on that note the Galileo affair was an aberration—it’d be unwise to see it as exemplary of the Church’s general attitude towards unorthodox science. The Church was like half Thomist for Christ’s sake.
For instance, most instances of heresy were crushed successfully without them bearing fruit or gaining influence. (In some part because most incidences of heresy are actually false theories. Because most new ideas in general are wrong.) The Galileo incident was an epic failure of both religious meme enforcement and public relations. It hasn’t happened often! Usually the little guy loses and nobody cares.
(The above generalises beyond “The Church” to heavy handed belief enforcement by human tribes in general.)
Right, but note I said unorthodox science. Heresy was crushed, but it wasn’t common for scientific theories to be seen as heretical. Galileo just happened to publish his stuff when the Church was highly insecure because of all the Protestant shenanigans. Heretical religious or sociopolitical teachings, on the other hand, were quashed regularly.
Yes, and Summers has gone on to be a presidential adviser.