This is a split from How could Japan and China improve their relationship ?, since I don't want to disrupt that discussion. Because the posts' contents were on 2 or more matters, I simply copy the related content here.
This is a split from How could Japan and China improve their relationship ?, since I don't want to disrupt that discussion. Because the posts' contents were on 2 or more matters, I simply copy the related content here.
Qwertyu's 1st post:
Originally Posted by qwertyu
Welcome to the forum! Nice post althoug a bit lengthy. Don't feel threatened by my response, I'm simply a nit-picker who can't let certain things stand.
A continuum yes, but no straight line. This is a very simplified view, which wrongly uses modern times as the root & follows the path backwards. If you look at it the other way round, you will find many branches with dead ends (some flourished for a while, others never grew very much), branches that grow parallel up to modernity & branches that after a while of parallel growth coalesced, a.s.o.
Pretty improbable. There is no evidence that Gutenberg copied a Chinese or Korean (which AFAIK had a greater influence than the Chinese one) invention.Without Chinese invention of type, books will not be as easily available during the age of European Enlightenment.
Each culture its "due": the Western zero most probably originated in India (but other cultures had similar ideas).Without Arabic numerals and their invention of Zero
I disagree. What about a culture where there is not much of a due? What have the Papuas given our modern culture? Are they less worth because it might be nothing?It is important to give each culture its due because we start to see others more humanely, less racist and stereotypically.
It is interesting where certain things originate, but it is in no way important. Even less, if you consider that it doesn't make much sense to attribute an invention in the distant past to a modern nation.
The Chinese gave us culture? You're sitting on a quite high horse here (since you're half-German you may understand: Du sitzt auf dem hohen Ross). Other cultures developed earlier than the Chinese, hence I can't see how that could be "China's due." East Asian Buddhism takes on various forms & I doubt that all originated in China, mathematics & astronomy can also be found earlier in other cultures than in China.The Chinese gave us all a fabulous start, with Math [eg.Pascal's Triangle], the compass for travel, astronomy, paper, paper money, culture, East Asian Buddhism [it is different from India's], etc.
Qwertyu's response:
Hi bossel, I agree with a lot of what you wrote, but also have some points :
True for a lot of history, but with regard to Chinese contribution to Modernity, it is a straight trajectory. I was reading Robert Temple's The Genius of China which detail the inventions from Science, Agriculture, Mathematics. A lot of the technology invented by the Chinese are still in use today. It is a fascinating read, and is supported by excellent illustrations and research. And of course there're Leibniz & Jung.A continuum yes, but no straight line. This is a very simplified view, which wrongly uses modern times as the root & follows the path backwards. If you look at it the other way round, you will find many branches with dead ends (some flourished for a while, others never grew very much), branches that grow parallel up to modernity & branches that after a while of parallel growth coalesced, a.s.o.
Pretty improbable. There is no evidence that Gutenberg copied a Chinese or Korean (which AFAIK had a greater influence than the Chinese one) invention.
In his book The Invention of Printing in China and Its Spread Westward, T. F. Carter argues that the ingenious idea of printing spread westward from China in the wake of the Mongol invasions, first of Turkistan and Persia, and then of Russia, Poland and Hungary. Carter provides strong circumstantial evidence to prove his point, a point that has come to be shared by many scholars. Try googling.
My mistake, in fact, the first zero was traced to China.Each culture its "due": the Western zero most probably originated in India (but other cultures had similar ideas).ok, I'm not trying to make anyone a sinophile, but I do think that credit should be given where it is due. I also hope that future generations will remember the achievements of today's American and European scientists/inventors too, in the areas of biotech, cybertech, club culture, mind-altering drugs, etc.
You misinterpreted my intention. It is more about the vilification of others I am concerned about, especially vis the Chinese and now Arabs/Muslims. They are depicted as barbaric, which is untrue. When the Papuans are vilified in the press, I'll be writing about how the Australians owe them! See, it's not true that they don't contribute to modernity either.I disagree. What about a culture where there is not much of a due? What have the Papuas given our modern culture? Are they less worth because it might be nothing?
I guess I have a more wholistic view of the world. it is not about demanding credit and respect for any particular culture, it is about understanding the universal aspect of our civilisation, to know where a bit from here, a bit from there, and here we are, re. theory of evolution, complexity, emergence, tao, etc.It is interesting where certain things originate, but it is in no way important. Even less, if you consider that it doesn't make much sense to attribute an invention in the distant past to a modern nation.
Is cultural influences something separate from science, knowledge, philosophy, architecture, art, etc? 1 example, VanGogh>Japanese prints>Chinese 2D paintingsThe Chinese gave us culture? You're sitting on a quite high horse here (since you're half-German you may understand: Du sitzt auf dem hohen Ross). Other cultures developed earlier than the Chinese, hence I can't see how that could be "China's due." East Asian Buddhism takes on various forms & I doubt that all originated in China, mathematics & astronomy can also be found earlier in other cultures than in China.
Of course not everything comes from China, I didn't claim that. But to deny that Chinese civilisation have a part in the evolution of the world today is equally preposterous.
Nope. You're still looking the wrong way. Looking backwards it may seem like a straight trajectory, but that's not the way to approach history.
Temple's book is available here at the university's library & I will have a look at it. Thanks for the recommendation.I was reading Robert Temple's The Genius of China which detail the inventions from Science, Agriculture, Mathematics. A lot of the technology invented by the Chinese are still in use today.
Carter's book is from 1925 (not available in a local library, hence I won't be able to have a look at it) & therefore pretty outdated.In his book The Invention of Printing in China and Its Spread Westward, T. F. Carter argues that the ingenious idea of printing spread westward from China in the wake of the Mongol invasions, first of Turkistan and Persia, and then of Russia, Poland and Hungary. Carter provides strong circumstantial evidence to prove his point, a point that has come to be shared by many scholars.
Movable type (as used by Gutenberg) most probably did not come from China. Perhaps you mistake that for block printing which with some goodwill can be traced back to China? But, then again, block printing can be traced back to the use of seals, probably invented in Mesopotamia & from there introduced in China.
I hope, you're kidding.My mistake, in fact, the first zero was traced to China.
I see your intention & it may be honorable. Yet, I don't see why any culture would need to contribute to modernity in order not to be vilified.When the Papuans are vilified in the press, I'll be writing about how the Australians owe them! See, it's not true that they don't contribute to modernity either.
Another question is, whether you can credit the culture for inventors who by chance lived in this culture's sphere of influence. I don't think so, inventions are made by individuals (or by small groups of dedicated individuals). The culture at best serves as a stimulating environment, but not more.
To give credit, where it is due, give it to the inventors!
I prefer the chaotic world view: a little butterfly here, a little butterfly there.I guess I have a more wholistic view of the world.
Well, OK, but I interpreted "The Chinese gave us all a fabulous start, with [...] culture" as such.Of course not everything comes from China, I didn't claim that.
Nobody would deny Chinese contributions, although -again- I don't see why such contributions would be necessary.But to deny that Chinese civilisation have a part in the evolution of the world today is equally preposterous.
Yes, history does meander and make loops, circuits, but there are also trajectories, eg. you can trace the evolution of today's humans directly to homo sapiens, even though other older humanoids existed, today's paper to its original incarnation, or languages to its latin or anglo-saxon roots, etc. Actually, you quoted the butterfly effect, which I think is an apt metaphor of the web of relationships between peoples and cultures that affect eachother. Although I would argue that history is more direct, easier to map and trace than the weather!
Carter's book is still used as a reference in a lot of academic curricula about the history of scientific inventions. Movable type was invented in China, in the form of clay units, and the Koreans further innovated into metal movable type before Gutenberg. If this interests you, I found a research paper here:
http://www.slis.ualberta.ca/cap03/st...lis600main.htm
I was really afraid I would sound sinocentric.I was flipping through the Temple book, and there, the concept of the zero first arose in China, then Indo-China [Cambodia], and then India. I was also thinking it was Al-Khayyam, one of my heroes and a Muslim.
Hmm, how about if I put it mathematically? It is a 1-way trajectory : acknowledging the achievements of a people's culture contributes to de-vilification of those people, but not the other way round, i.e. not acknowledging the achievements of a people's culture does not lead to vilification of said people? I'd love to put it in a vector equation, but that's too nerdy.I see your intention & it may be honorable. Yet, I don't see why any culture would need to contribute to modernity in order not to be vilified.
Ah, here I'd jump in and say, I would credit the earliest Chinese system of promoting meritocracy vs European system of aristocracy for their rapid progress. The first Emperor was a horror, but he also instituted the nation-wide examination system which recruited the best brains into the government, regardless of background. The poorest can move to the top based on pure ability, but of course there were also corrupt emperors, etc. This practice continued throughout Chinese history. Whereas in Europe, until the Enlightenment, the bloodline/church dominated power.Another question is, whether you can credit the culture for inventors who by chance lived in this culture's sphere of influence. I don't think so, inventions are made by individuals (or by small groups of dedicated individuals). The culture at best serves as a stimulating environment, but not more.To give credit, where it is due, give it to the inventors!
Chaos is a subset of Complexity, which consists of chaos & order in continuous flux.I prefer the chaotic world view: a little butterfly here, a little butterfly there.
I hope I don't come across as privileging science and logic too much, my inclination is to the arts even, but I find it helps to clarify positions even as diverse as contemporary politics for me.
The Mitochondrial Eve is more definitive than you put it, in that it essentially debunks the multi-origin theory. It is also the most statistical, mathematical evidence out there of human origins. I guess until DNA testing on some new groups of peoples provide startingly new and different results, it is accepted as the de facto evolutionary history.
Mendoza isn't a "speculating" guy but a respected Portuguese historian whose works form the basis of many sinologist historians' research into Sino-Euro contact and relations.
I believe Jared Diamond, the Pulitzer winning historian, arrived at a similar conclusion which he expanded in a April 1999 New York Times Magazine article about the printing press. I can't find an online copy, just a reference to it by Googling. Carter's book is still used as an academic reference in universities as a background bibliography to the history of printing/books, which means that it isn't debunked and discredited. Anyway, knowing the origin of a particular invention doesn't detract from the achievements of Gutenberg and many others of his contemporaries in Europe who innovated in other ways and made optimum use out of the technology. Printing in China didn't help accelerate literacy in the same way at all because of the nature of the language and culture.
Ok, back to battling revisionists! I'm curious, are you Japanese or teaching in Japan? How do you accumulate so much knowledge about Japan?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks