7 ms·
Harmful to whom?
by NaggingGranpa 7y ago
Harmful to whom?
- pron 7y agoTo a far greater portion of human society than those it was perhaps useful for, if anyone.
- NaggingGranpa 7y agoYet, it was the horrible, horrible Europe that Moldbug mythologizes and romanticizes that made virtually all advances in science and technology until a few decades ago. Ancient Greece produced mechanical computers. Only recently did the great civilizations of China and India overcome Hellenic science & technology. Having Mandarins cataloging the Emperor's property is not a great use of human capital.
- pron 7y agoWhat? Non-sequitur much? While the so-called European Miracle of the past 500 years is a fascinating and complex area of research that will undoubtedly be studied for generations and centuries to come, I wasn't aware that anyone considers modern (18th c. and beyond) romanticist ideology to be the major driving force of science and technology.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- zozbot234 7y ago"Romanticist ideology" is a remarkably vague term, but I think one could make a case that something like it ended up being very much a factor. Of course, the reverse is also true; in the absence of 18th- and 19th-century science (including advancements in the social sciences, mostly coming from the "humanist" side as Carlyle knew quite well!) no "romanticist" ideology would even exist.
- Apocryphon 7y agoThat’s a... debatable assertion about the history of science in those places.