|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The mark of a decent civilization is?
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
In a well-delivered speech this evening, the dean of a liberal arts and sciences college of our provincial university quoted Chris Hedges - someone I've never heard of - "the mark of a civilization is compassion, not consumption". I thought I would bring this shipboard to discuss, because I respect the diverse backgrounds and opinions here.
He said this in the context of discussing the qualities taught within the arts, social sciences and humanities of critical analysis, divergent approaches to problem solving, refusal to follow the specific answers given to us by those who've professed to see the light or say they can offer snappy, precise and attractive answers to complex questions. That we just listen to each other with the compassion which allows us to hear each other and the diversity of opinion.
Is the mark of a good civilization, a decent civilization, the compassion to hear each other, and to be willing to change course from what we hear? Or are the business analysis case study, the economic model, the competitive model backed up by laws, courts and wars, the technological solution model - are these, the things we're doing, the mark of a decent civilization?
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
"the mark of a civilization is compassion, not consumption"...
That we just listen to each other with the compassion which allows us to hear each other and the diversity of opinion.
What a load of vacuous and crushingly obvious tripe. Of course the mark of civilisation is having respect for one another!
In other news of remarkably original thinking, the mark of the sky is blueness and upness.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
A compassionate and civilised retort.
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
And?
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
I had an interesting journey with this one
about 20 years ago I got interested in physiology and emotions in a big way, and discovered that emotions and physiology are more or less the same system - so if we choose our emotional state we can also optimise our physiology. Strangely, the emotional state that makes our physiology most resilient in teh long term and adaptive in the short term is appreeciation-compassion-gratitude(-love).
So to start off with it just seemed a bit fo a no brainer and something quite simple. After practicing appreciation-gratitude for 20 years I can assure you that it's not simple. I've some to teh conslusion that the primary sickness in our society is a generational numbness of the heart. And feeling what is not there - is impossible unless you somehow get a glimpse of it. Since Love is a basis for everything that this world is really about, a common reaction to exposure to the feeling is one of grief, despair, self-loathing and all kinds of other non-love emotions - because we know deep in our core what is missing and fear experiencing it in case we get to like it and then it goes again.
Yes - civilisation is about compassion - and there have been primitive societies far more civilised than we are as a collective whole. A family of meercats demonstrates more compassion than the average western human being. Which is one reason I had a good rant on another new thread here - if there's one thing that noticeably and repeatedly and to everyone's great cost exhibits zero compassion, it's the "popular" press. Why does it do so? Because the motive for every word written or spoken in "popular" media is about generating corporate profit.
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
I had an interesting journey with this one...
...to start off with it just seemed a bit fo a no brainer and something quite simple. After practicing appreciation-gratitude for 20 years I can assure you that it's not simple. ... civilisation is about compassion
Oh dear god.
What the fuck's happened to this place?
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
Is it nicer when people are nicer to each other, or is it nicer when they're self-serving materialists? Well this is such a novel and profoundly seraching question I'd better ask the dog what he thinks- its just the sort of sociological conundrum that'll challenge his capacity for considered reflection and critical analysis.
Damn, but I just popped in to see what you bright young things are discussing at the mo, and now I shall have to take a dangerous dose of amphetamines just to shake off the ennui.
Yawn.
Can't. Reach. Bottle.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Patdys
Iron Wannabe
RooK-Annoyer
# 9397
|
Posted
From a very quick google,
The measure of civilisation...
energy capture per capita,
organization,
information technology,
and war-making capacity.
Yorick, it really does come down to what you value.
For some money, others power, others relationship.
--------------------
Marathon run. Next Dream. Australian this time.
Posts: 3511 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
Well thats the trouble with 'very quick Googles' I suppose. Those things are symptoms and signs of societal progress, but that absolutely is not the same thing as the mark of civilisation, as was so patronisingly and leadingly proposed in the OP. Does anyone here disagree? No?
Didn't think so.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
JonahMan
Shipmate
# 12126
|
Posted
As Gandhi nearly said, it would be nice to have a decent civilization to assess.
--------------------
Thank God for the aged
And old age itself, and illness and the grave
For when you're old, or ill and particularly in the coffin
It's no trouble to behave
Posts: 914 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alyosha
Shipmate
# 18395
|
Posted
When I was at school I considered this question. It was fairly obvious at the time that things could be a lot worse and that there was such a thing called civilisation in which I was living.
Whether or not I had been duped, I don't know. At the time it seemed very real, but I suppose a lot of civilisation is subjective - in that if you feel secure then you will believe that civilisation functions effectively.
This was during the time when every school kid was afraid of nuclear attack from Russia. If you weren't worried about this then you were a lucky kid.
So I considered that this could not happen, that civilisation would continue and progress and security and a kind of peace would reign. When I questioned my ideas I wondered why I came to this conclusion. In the end I decided that civilisation was assured because we lived A.D., after the appearance of Christ. I wasn't a Christian then, but it seemed an almost reasonable position (in that a child's reasoning is often better than an adults and many adults will return to their childhood reasonings (simply because things made more sense back then)). Adults usually retain their childhood reasoning and I think this is a wise choice.
What I then wondered was how the plagues and the great fire of London and the World Wars had happened if civilisation was so secure because of the birth of Christ. These things had happened A.D. along with a host of other disasters.
And that was without even looking at other countries which did not seem to be functioning civilisations.
So, in adulthood, when I put childish things aside (I'm lying), I understood that civilisation was a lot more precarious than it seemed. WTSHTF the whole thing could fall apart.
As you can see, this post is not an academic essay and not likely to get me a speaking engagement unless I reword it and come up with some imaginative new terms for the childhood ideas I had.
And this is the basis of all academia - making up words and speaking in jargon.
So let us call the seeming precarious nature of civilisation 'existential childhood delirium'. It will not catch on, but that's civilisation for you.
[ 02. June 2015, 09:21: Message edited by: Alyosha ]
Posts: 162 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
Right now I'd suggeest a decent civilization is one that adequately looks after those who don't deserve looking after.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
I would say that a decent society looks after the vulnerable. Civilization refers to something more like the production of arts, sciences, philosophy, and public buildings and infrastructure.
That is to say that civilization is not the most important thing.
Arguably the idea of civilization is inherently prejudical to societies categorised as not civilized.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
I think there's a difference between a civilisation and a society.
For me Civilisation implies complex ideas, art, music, technology - whereas society doesn't necessarily. Civilisation requires a large enough population and enough spare resources to enable some people specialise in creating these things. It needs a sophisticated enough legal system to govern.
It also requires time to evolve: hence a military to defend itself, as well as a stable social order. The latter implies strongly shared cultural values, a respect for tradition and very often religion - but also enough flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances. Without land you don't have a civilisation and this almost inevitably implies some initial warfare too.
The Aztecs were a great civilisation. It doesn't mean they were particularly kind, or a society we want to emulate. Conversely, a small group of people living on an island for 50 years might have a wonderful society but it's not what we usually refer to as a civilisation.
[Very slow cross-post with Dafyd!]
[ 02. June 2015, 11:45: Message edited by: Hiro's Leap ]
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Right now I'd suggeest a decent civilization is one that adequately looks after those who don't deserve looking after.
Which is an answer I'd like to hear Yorick reply to. It's a little deeper than your dismissal. Those who don't deserve looking after are not consumers are they?
One of the recent answers in Canada is the Supreme Court decision that assisted suicide is legal. Probably, then, the answer is that when people are no longer consumers, society should facilitate their exit.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Damn, but I just popped in to see what you bright young things are discussing at the mo, and now I shall have to take a dangerous dose of amphetamines just to shake off the ennui.
Yawn.
Can't. Reach. Bottle.
Do you have anything to add to the conversation? Because so far you are complaining about the quality of discussion, which is neither contributing anything better or even on topic.
If you're not over the edge on criticizing the poster vs. the post, you are certainly rather close.
Gwai,
Purgatory Host
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alyosha
Shipmate
# 18395
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Damn, but I just popped in to see what you bright young things are discussing at the mo, and now I shall have to take a dangerous dose of amphetamines just to shake off the ennui.
Yawn.
Can't. Reach. Bottle.
Do you have anything to add to the conversation? Because so far you are complaining about the quality of discussion, which is neither contributing anything better or even on topic.
If you're not over the edge on criticizing the poster vs. the post, you are certainly rather close.
Gwai,
Purgatory Host
Perhaps Yorick is like Christ passing by? Maybe the ennui is His latest thing? By the way, I like boring. Boring never killed anyone. Boring isn't some horrific crisis. Not that this is boring. I'll get my coat...
[ 02. June 2015, 13:47: Message edited by: Alyosha ]
Posts: 162 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
People are generally in favour of compassion, right up to the point where they find out what it means. Because you tell them compassion involves suffering, and they often go "Oh," because they realise that what they thought it meant was kindness, or helpfulness, or even just being-well-disposed-towards.
Because, of course, it does involve suffering. Not just etymologically (from Latin compati via medieval Latin compassio = "to suffer with") but actually in many modern languages (e.g. German "Mitleid" = "with-suffering"). The implication of compassion is not just being helpful to a person from a distance. It's actually sitting down with them in whatever pile of crap they happen to be in, and not minding what it does to your Armani suit, and then helping them out.
So yes, I'd say compassion is a pretty good measure of a civilised society. But I'm not sure, having had it explained, how many people would actually agree with me.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
...so far you are complaining about the quality of discussion, which is neither contributing anything better or even on topic.
Thanks for your Hostly advice.
You will of course have noticed that I was criticising the content of the OP, not any person in particular, and specifically that the question was raised about whether a society may be distinguished as ‘civilised' on grounds of its upholding of either materialistic or compassionate values. I critiqued the question. If this is in any way an infringement of the 10Cs, I apologise.
You'll be glad to know I have quite a lot to say about what distinguishes a society as 'civilised', and hope to contribute in a manner that pleases you and no prophet etc... as soon as possible.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
...so far you are complaining about the quality of discussion, which is neither contributing anything better or even on topic.
Thanks for your Hostly advice.
You will of course have noticed that I was criticising the content of the OP, not any person in particular, and specifically that the question was raised about whether a society may be distinguished as ‘civilised' on grounds of its upholding of either materialistic or compassionate values. I critiqued the question. If this is in any way an infringement of the 10Cs, I apologise.
That's a mighty fine line you're trying to tread between apologizing and arguing, but you missed it this time. Don't argue with the hosts. Further discussion of this should happen in the Styx. And yes hosts will sometimes tell people when their behavior is close to being over a line, but isn't yet.
Gwai,
Purgatory Host
[ 02. June 2015, 14:17: Message edited by: Gwai ]
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Is it nicer when people are nicer to each other, or is it nicer when they're self-serving materialists? Well this is such a novel and profoundly seraching question I'd better ask the dog what he thinks- its just the sort of sociological conundrum that'll challenge his capacity for considered reflection and critical analysis.
Damn, but I just popped in to see what you bright young things are discussing at the mo, and now I shall have to take a dangerous dose of amphetamines just to shake off the ennui.
Yawn.
Can't. Reach. Bottle.
I have to agree with Yorick on this. "Compassion is better than consumption" is a truism. As such, there are very few people who are going to disagree with it, even among people who would be widely regarded as grasping, gluttonous materialists. Because, of course, nobody thinks of THEIR acquisition as being "consumption", in the widely-used negative sense of the word. And almost everyone(besides maybe a few Ayn Randians) regards themselves as compassionate.
If you want to be really radical, point to a specific person, and say "That sports jacket you're wearing, looks like it would cost about, what, 500 bucks? That could've bought a month's worth of laundry detergent for your local homeless shelter." In other words, give clear and specific examples of what you mean by bad consumption, and laudable compassion.
But, of course, doing THAT would open you up to swift rebuttal, because almost everyone has purchases that are uniustifiable by mere neccessity, the funds for which could have gone to those with less than you.
[ 02. June 2015, 14:30: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
... are these, the things we're doing, the mark of a decent civilization?
I don't think there IS such a thing as a decent civilization. Or a good one. There are just human ones (don't know about the aliens yet) which means they're all a very mixed bag.
Maybe this comes from confusion between civility and civilization? The latter is AFAIK a term used to describe a relatively large group of human beings bound together in an ongoing and very complex set of social interactions. Nothing about moral judgements there.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I don't think there IS such a thing as a decent civilization. Or a good one. There are just human ones (don't know about the aliens yet) which means they're all a very mixed bag.
I find myself in agreements to this.
The only civilisation I can relate to is the one I observe and grew up in. They have been times with urban riots, football hooliganism, binge drinking etc. when it may have appeared UK civilization was in peril. However civilisation only seems to suffer real breakdown when law and order breaks down. Take a look at post-earthquake Haiti.
The "mark" of decent civilisation? Not sure really. Decency person to person is a God-given thing and occurs naturally, it's something of a mystery. People can be decent to each other in the most awful environment, likewise people can be horrible to each other when circumstances are seemingly secure and favourable.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
