Was There Really a Dark Age, or Just a Middle Age?

[MrPossumtrot1]

Is the Dark age suppose mark the end of Rome?

[americanliberal09]

objectivist failed

the dark ages begin when Rome fall and the rise of Christianity

the Romans preserved the greek knowledge and give out ideas of republic which Athens did not.

[rugbyboy198127]

GREAT VIDEO MATE - THANKS ALOT... finally someone who knows their history! well done, keep it up, fascinating stuff, i'm glad i found your videos... cheers, an educated, not brainwashed englishman - cheers!

[TheTruthgeneral]

cropperb, I agree with a lot of what you say as I am a student of objectivism however I must say the following, christianity is not the cause in any way of the dark age or any downfall in intellectual life.Isaac Newton himself was a ardent protestant whose mechanistic view of the world was based on his christian metaphysics also I would remind you that he was a alchemist .... interesting uh man of science and he was also a alchemist.So this mystic you say took us out of the dark ages ha ha ha

[vincenz55]

how can you actually beleive a book written by an ignorant jealous brit whos ancestor was running around with a skirt and gonella.? without rome, britain would not have been the power it was..rome gave britain culture technology and fighting smarts.

Greece learned alot from previous empires before it..the egyptians sumerians and babylonians were before the greeks and were just as brilliant if not more than the greeks. greeks couldnt build the pyramids or the hanging gardens of babylon.

[pbchallenger]

the dark age, began with the little ice age. which herald the black plague, i feel that it was climate change that triggered Europe into the dark ages

[PyrrhusofEpirus]

Specifically, the Mediterranean reached its apogee or height of peace and unity during the reign of the Roman emperor Antoninus Pius [138-161 CE].

More individuals could read and write in 150 CE [During the Roman Principate/Early Empire] than in 1550 CE. In particular, the fourth century CE marked the height of Neoplatonic philosophy.

While the golden age of Athens marked the glory of Greece, the golden age of Rome [The Pax Romana] marked the glory of the world.

[PyrrhusofEpirus]

I must comment that this video is complete nonsense.

The Roman Empire under the Nerva-Antonine line [96-180 CE] marked the golden age of Antiquity. Politically, the Grecians were fractured and fissiparous as in the case of the Second Peloponnesian War [431-404 BCE] which was a war of fratricide. On the other side, the Romans brought peace, economic prosperity, order and stability to the entire Mediterranean region during the Pax Romana [27 BCE-180 CE].

[ESP1EMG]

bah to the greeks. sicily and syracuse are rome. Archimedes was rome. j/k. he was greek and killed by the romans. ROME CONTRIBUTED NOTHING

[ESP1EMG]

......BUT DEVASTATION....!!!!!!!

[forgottenmemories63]

Classifying Rest of the World after the Fall of Roman Era as a Dark Age would be ignoran. Chinese, Japanese, Indians, Islamic Empire in Middle East, All of them were making significant Contributions to Society in Various Fields, So it's more appropriate of calling it the "Dark Ages in Europe".

But of course, No one would deny that the World's Greatest Contributions were from the Renaissance and Reformation that Changed the Landscape, Thinking, Creativity, Innovation & Society of the World.

[unapologeticmind]

So, to sum it up... To call the Roman era a Dark Age would be unrealistic, because then you would have to define as Dark Age almost all world history... Even the Dark Ages deserve at least some slack since that period in many important ways set the stage for what was to come... So, It's better to think of Classical Greece and Renaissance Europe as being the two most productive peaks in world civilization rather than these two periods being the 'expected' norm...

[unapologeticmind]

My first post vanished, reposting it here:

Romans though not very scientific did spread Greek philosophy, culture and knowledge wherever they went, built cities and roads where none previously existed, united a vast area into one cultural and economic area, etc. That has to count for something.

Between 100BC - 200AD there were contributions to practical philosophy from people like Seneca and Epictetus, to poetry from people like Horace and Virgil, to cosmology and cartography from Ptolemy.

[unapologeticmind]

Also, Kepler's laws of motion which preceded Newton's work were a major advance in cosmology...

[unapologeticmind]

Aristarchus of Samos did indeed first propose the Heliocentric idea, however to quote Wikipedia "it was not until the 16th century that a fully predictive mathematical model of a heliocentric system was presented, by the Renaissance mathematician and astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus".

Likewise, Galileo did not merely "reawaken" Greek science. Using empricism, he proved Aristotle wrong in the speed of falling bodies and introduced the concept of relativity, not to mention building the telescope.

[unapologeticmind]

Between 5th-6th century AD Roman law underwent significant development and was finally codified under Justinian (Code of Justinian). This codification would in turn become the basis for medieval European law as well as today's civil law.

In the 13th century AD people like Robert Grosseteste and Robert Bacon developed the idea of empiricism, improving on Plato's and Aristotle's logic-based approaches to science.

[kauffner]

Just to say, "The Sun is the center" or "The Earth is the center" isn't science. Copernicus worked out a system to explain observations of the motions of the planets, which Aristarchus never did. Galileo proved the Earth wasn't the center by using a telescope to observe the phases of Venus.

Fibonacci lived around 1200 and his math was already a big step ahead of the ancients. Oresme (1350) and Kepler (1600) were made major advances as well.

[thenoorer]

europe was in dark ages. the muslims were shining since the fall of western roman empire. their contribution is way beyond what you mat imagine and the christian papacy drew a grim picture of the muslim world since the crusades (real dark age) which still lingers today in minds like yours. if you think i am just making this up look it up. a hint to begin with: algorithm term and surgical tools: who created them ;) so long ignorant close mind

[rvgmuhs07]

Rome actually did do a fair amount to advance engineering, architecture, medicine, and law, and even if those accomplishments were marginal compared to the Greek philosophers, Rome also did not regress. In fact, you can even compare the eastern Empire and western Europe in the sixth and succeeding centuries and see just how much more advanced the Empire was compared to dark age Europe. It's a fallacy to say that the rise of Rome began the dark ages, though it's decline was certainly horrid.

[yellowlabrador]

Don't you believe in the theory that the british isles were a repository for a lot of classic knowledge and the saving of classical latin? It's very hard to draw lines, I see the romans as engineers rather than thinkers, a different kind of knowledge. The dark ages are a myth to me,

[rarework]

Enjoyed your vid

However, consider the following:

While the Romans did not prod philosophers on the same level as the Greeks, they did prod a lot of tech important to daily life, such as, juriprudence, architecture, road engineering and the like.

Similarly, the "Dark Ages" prod the stirrup, crop rotation, the wind mill, and new developments in the harness all of which improved life significantly. List others: a mil code of conduct: chivalry; magna carta and ct system; and parliament

[belisarius1453]

nice video and i agree with it, but only partly

it is corect that romans did nothing and there was nothing exelent from greek til newton

but only if you limit yousefl to west europe

arabs and eastern emire in constinople had prosper in scinece and culture

[N0vaR0ma]

u dont kno what ur talkin about 4 eyes,i see no reason to explayin to you so go fukk ur self

[thexjib]

this is a great video... I'd hire you to teach my kid history.

[pokbacsi100]

So either nature or man's own stupidity and greed always does him in in the end, so to speak.

[pokbacsi100]

marnee, Sure. Why not? In itself disease can cut the pop. in overpopulated areas especially, right where it is needed (reduced stress for those who survive, reduced resource abuse, reduced pollution, reduced chances for war, etc.) And all of these together of course can lead to major wars, and have many times, causing further pop. reductions ultimately. Humans on the surface of earth are like bacteria on an orange. Chaos theory! No control. No will to stop.

[barryhulio]

italians are crap - and thats final.

[marneedear]

WTF?

[pokbacsi100]

People get a life. Do you honestly believe all progress has eve stopped completely. C'mon what is progress in the 1st place to throw some philosophy at you. Regression and progress can be mirror images not just opposites. One man's progress is another's regress. The resource abuse heading us in the direction of a global disaster is progress?

C'mon. Maybe, in theory, for the established old money assholes running the world or a yuppie driving SUVs. We'll see how they run

when a Tsunami hits N.Y.

[marneedear]

So the extreme prevalence of disease, poverty, tyranny and mysticism could be considered progress in some way? HOW?

[GaiusIuliusTaberna]

Labeling a civilization as "barbaric" because it had a few Tyrants is absurd. What happened during Nero's reign was considered barbaric by Rome's own people, its not indicative of an entire culture. On pedophilia, it was a common practice in the ancient world. Gaelic and Germanic society was brutal, disputes were settled with combat, and war was constant, the common people were serfs and slaves. This is also how the world was, during the Dark ages.

[barryhulio]

thr romans stole other peoples inventions -stole building technology from the etruscans- pizza came from the middle east- speghetti came from china. and rome became a melting pot of foreignors that was used and controlled with base unthinking brutality.

[GaiusIuliusTaberna]

Rome didn't "steal" knowledge from other cultures it adopted them. Being smart enough to recognize and adopt good practices and technologies isn't a vice, its a virtue. This is why Rome was superior to those it conquered. And it did not oppress anyone! Rome was no more brutal than any of its contemporaries and in fact it was decidedly more merciful and fair than the Greeks, barbarians, and many eastern nations, (excluding the Persians.)

[rugbyboy198127]

@GaiusIuliusTaberna BARBARIANS? DO NOT MAKE SUCH SLIGHT OF MY PEOPLES... ROMANS WERE A FEARFUL COWARDLY SMALL PEOPLE, OPRESSED AND AT THE WHIM AND MERCY OF HER NORTHERN NEIGHBOURS FOR MANY MANY YEARS... THEY GOT CLEVER, ABANDONED MORALITY AND DECENCY AND HONOUR AND PAID OTHERS (MERCENARIES) TO WAGE THEIR WARS ETC EVERYBODY KNOWS IT - THE LIE IS UP - IT'S OVER - BRITONS HAD CALANDER FAR MORE ADVANCED THAN ROMANS, ART AND METAL WORK ROMANS COULD ONLY DREAM OF... THEY WERE NOT 'BARBARIAN' THANKYOU!

[rugbyboy198127]

@GaiusIuliusTaberna if it could understand them it adopted them, those it did not understand it simply ridiculed or ignored! rome was not great, she couldn't even conquer britain and ireland fully - well many peoples of the north have managed to do that - before the romans and since the romans, rome collected all the most elite troops from all her empire and beyond - paid them sums unheard of at the time and put her heart and soul into crushing those rebelious scots/picts, still couldn't do it!?

[GaiusIuliusTaberna]

Considering the achievements of imperial Rome and its wealth of knowledge both borrowed and improved upon, the idea that cultural, social, religious, and political revolution of the Dark ages, and the tyranny, religious intolerance, and despotism of the feudal ages, which was only undone during the renaissance, and further corrected upon during the enlightenment and modern era, had no effect on human civilization and wasn't a catastrophe that set us back hundreds of years, seams laughable.

[firewallx]

cropperb, you need to develop a cogent argument -

There's one of several inconsistencies in your video:

First - your premise is that it was T. Aquinas, 3 mins. later you proclaim it was Newton who signalled the end of the dark ages? Etc. etc. ad nauseum.

1 star...

[dave98503]

If you were living during that

period of time, you may not have

thought about it being the Dark Ages.

It has been proven, however, that we

did go backwards in technology, thinking,

science, etc., etc., etc. Maybe the

armored suits that knights wore improved

along with war technology...but not by

much.

[darbedarpareshaan]

there is not such a thing as dark ages. if the voice of the people could not be heard through the ages, it doesn't mean they did not think.

[FygeApoDoReVromokole]

you are very right. this view is pretty popular too. don't think you're alone...

[fklr]

Thank you for the video. Your videos are a great way for users of Youtube to gain an interest in the history of Western Civilization.

I should point out that the last emperor of the western Roman empire abdicated his throne in 476. The city of Rome was sacked in 410.

[fklr]

Great video, but I must point out that Newton published his great work in 1687, not 1676.

From wikipedia:

His treatise Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica published in 1687, and said to be the greatest single work in the history of science, described universal gravitation and the three laws of motion, laying the groundwork for classical mechanics, which dominated the scientific view of the physical universe for the next three centuries and is the basis for modern engineering.

[donovanfrost]

I don't agree that the Roman age was the beginning of the dark age,but rather somewhat of a stagnation of ideas,which lead to the culture's downfall and was a precursor to the dark ages.I do agree however that Capernocius and Galeio where pretty much just rehashing old ideas.Newton was completely original.

[brianmckenna1]

The second main problem I have with your argument is a great assumption you made (though all arguments are based on assumptions). You have the Greeks as the water mark by whether or not a society is in the dark. If society hasn't reached the scientific levels of the Greek society than that society is in the dark. HOWEVER, what if the scientific achievements by the Greeks had been made even earlier by other societies and perhaps even surppassed?

[brianmckenna1]

If you have the Greeks as your water mark then I don't see how the Romans were in the dark. While they may have not added any significant scientific achievements they did acquire and use the science of the Greeks. In other words, they didn't regress and therefore weren't in the dark.

[MrCropper]

"they did acquire and use the science of the Greeks"

That is historically demonstrably false.

[GaiusIuliusTaberna]

I think we have enough aqueducts, heated baths, academies, libraries, public theaters, civil engineering, and philosophical and natural knowledge, to prove that it is indeed true and not false.

In fact, the Romans were quite able to improve upon the Greeks, they invented the heated bath, and the public rest room.

[MrCropper]

"In fact, the Romans were quite able to improve upon the Greeks, they invented the heated bath, and the public rest room."

In the realm of engineering, the Romans had some gains, true. But in the realm of science, philosophy, and drama they only borrowed from the Greeks.

The very fact that you can only name baths and restrooms as improvements, shows that Rome's improvements were unremarkable.

[GaiusIuliusTaberna]

Unremarkable? And I suppose the worlds first census, the formation of an effective republican government, citizenship, concept of human rights, freedom of religion, 2000 years of relative stability, the first truly effective system of paved highways, the mile, standardized planed construction, the worlds first binary communication system, the largest defensive wall the western world, the first superdome, the vaulted ceiling, the modern arch, hydraulic concrete, the list goes on.

[MrCropper]

Compare your measly list with the Greeks: Philosophy, tragedy, drama, history, geography, democracy, written law, coinage, heliocentric theory.

As Charles Murray put it in his book, "Human Accomplishment:"

"Scientific, philosophic and artistic progress did not come to an end when Rome FELL, but, without much exaggeration, when Rome rose." [Emphasis mine]

[GaiusIuliusTaberna]

The Greeks didn't invent the idea of history, (they invented the word.) Witten laws have been around since at least Hammurabi. More over, one could argue that as human society advances we begin to reach our limits and make advances less and less often. The vast majority of the things we know now are ancient and have either been learned from ancient people, or rediscovered.

The roman empire collapsing was a bad thing, because we lost a great deal of knowledge and sophistication.

[MrCropper]

"More over, one could argue that as human society advances we begin to reach our limits and make advances less and less often."

Only an idiot would argue such. We advance more and faster all the time. The ancients were extremely ignorant. Wow, I think you are, too!

Look into Kurzweil for more on the exponential growth of knowledge.

[GaiusIuliusTaberna]

Resorting to blanket statements and petty insults, how "civilized" of you. I think you belong in the dark ages. Knowledge may have spread, but its not necessarily new. Most of what we know is either taken directly from the ancients or rediscovered. Our system of government, or concept of right and wrong, the idea of science, logic, art, human expression, and argument, (which this discourse is clearly lacking) all ancient, handed down to us by the Romans Greeks and near eastern civilizations.

[MrCropper]

"nowledge may have spread, but its not necessarily new. Most of what we know is either taken directly from the ancients or rediscovered."

Now look, I admire Greece, but this is going way too far. I'm willing to give them a lot of credit, but you must think they had cars and space flight. Uh oh...

Do you believe they had cars and space flight?

[GaiusIuliusTaberna]

No, they had the concept that planets were terrestrial and thus could be landed on, and they have paved roads with carts. They also had steam engines, so in theory. They had all they needed to make cars, just not the social/economic incentives to put them together.

[p0rq]

Oh ok, fair enough. I thought you were saying the Middle Ages wasn't a valid classification, because I think it is quite valid. It's this weird time, between the revival of Philosophy and scientific progress, as things pick up, which can only really be described as a 'middling time', as the steam starts to build up for the Renaissance.

Do you have any other videos on the Dark Ages?

[MrCropper]

"Do you have any other videos on the Dark Ages?"

Yes, see "Aristotle and Islam's Golden Age" and probably a few more...

[p0rq]

I wish to disagree with you, but I think it may just be on a terminological grounding. You say the Dark Age ended in 1650? But I think you place far too much grounding on Science. I mean, yes, I'll agree, Science is vital.

But do you not count, say, the Rebirth of the Arts as being important enough to mark the end of the Dark Ages? If Art is the use of man's mind to selectively recreated reality, than this use of man's mind stretches back further than 1650, Renaissance-wise

[cropperb]

The end of the dark ages was marked by the revival of philosophy (Thomas Aquinas, 1224-1274 AD). My point was simply that if we measure by a stand point of science the dark age lasted longer then most people realized.

[tigerfish03]

It's amazing what Western man accomplished in so little time while other parts of the world that were civilized for much longer (China) accomplished so little.

[cropperb]

The Principia was published in 1687, not 1676. So it was 100 years before the Constitutional Convention in Philedelphia, rather than 100 years before the Declaration of Independence. Sorry about that slip-up.

[swanberger]

Sure wealth is not enough to achieve happiness. That is true. But that does not mean that wealth is unimportant or, for that matter, that it becomes less important the wealthier we become. Man's need and desire for more wealth is in fact unlimited. For evidence here, read Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics by George Reisman. It is available for free, legally, on the Internet. "Google it".

[swanberger]

Let me finish the quote: In the United States today the difference between a rich man and a poor man means very often only the difference between a Cadillac and a Chevrolet.

[swanberger]

Let me quote the great economist Ludwig von Mises: Today, in the capitalist countries, there is relatively little difference between the basic life of the so-called higher and lower classes; both have food, clothing, and shelter. But in the eighteenth century and earlier, the difference between the man of the middle class and the man of the lower class was that the man of the middle class had shoes and the man of the lower class did not have shoes.

[swanberger]

However, in a another sense, the capitalistic economies achieves a more equal "distribution" of wealth and any other kind of economic system. There are many good reasons for this, the primary one being the fact that capitalism is the system of mass production - the mass production of goods available for the masses.

[swanberger]

All this proves is that the EQUAL distribution of wealth in fact is unimportant. What, on the other hand, is important is whether the distribution is just, i.e., represents the productive ability of each individual. And that is most certainly more the case in more capitalistic countries like the US!

[swanberger]

Why is the distribution of wealth "meaningful"? After all, it is possible to conceive a society where everybody is equally poor. In fact, that was pretty much the case in all the communist countries. (The only relatively rich were the communists themselves.) Why is this good or "meaningful"?

[swanberger]

Education is important, that is true. But one of the primary reasons education is a good thing is because people can then get the kind of work they want, and hopefully, to make it possible for them to earn a good living. While the pursue of knowledge for the sake of knowledge, might be fun in itself, it would be platonic and thus irrational to pursue knowledge without any practical purpose in mind.

[nine9s]

I looked up lists of per capita GDP for US states and for countries, and if the EU were a US state, it would only be richer than West Virginia and Mississippi, clocking in at #49 (since there'd be 51 "states"). Both France and Germany would be higher, though, reaching a staggering #48. Switzerland would be 45th, between Kentucky and Alabama.

[parispeter2]

You and Swanberger really are obsessed with the economy! I believe that above a certain level, increases in wealth do not increase happiness, and all developed countries are above this minimum. So what sense does GDP/capita have? It's totally childish, like saying "mine's bigger than yours"! What about levels of education, distribution of wealth, work/leisure balance and other more meaningful indicators?

[swanberger]

Finally concerning "extreme poverty", it may very well be the case that there is more of that in the US than in Sweden. Although it is very hard to estimate what that really means. I hold that poverty is only relative, not absolut. Both in the US and in Sweden. There are som good evidence for this. Google on "Understanding Poverty" and click on the first Heritage link dealing with the subject, and you will see that "poverty" in America isn't all that bad.

[swanberger]

A more logical explaination for the fact that you will find more criminals among the working class that people from the lower classes in a higher degree, for some reason, have bad values. They are more often short range in their thinking. For evidence on this point read Stanton Samenows book Inside the Criminal Mind.

[swanberger]

Please notice that between 1950-1990 the frequency of reported crimes in Sweden went from less than 200 000 to 1 200 000! How can one possible explain this if it were the case that the redistribution of wealth was suppose to give us less, not more, crime? This is not a result of a larger swedish population. Per 100 000 swedes the crime rate went, during the same period, from 2800 to 14 300! (Source: bra . se, the Swedish agency for crime statistics.)

[swanberger]

If poverty ever caused crime, then explain how come Sweden and the US experienced a crime wave during the 1970s and 1980s, even though fewer people than ever were poor? Or how do you explain that at least in the US the rate of violent crimes were lower in the beginning of the 20th century, even though poverty were much worse? How do you explain that the overwhelming majority of all poor people aren't criminals?

[swanberger]

Nine9s said that there's no connection between how much wealth is redistributed and the level of violence. That is true. To begin with it is a fact that man is a volitional being. He has a free will. It's a choice. A bad choice, but a choice never the less. In absolute terms poverty is virtually non-existent in (semi-)capitalistic countries like the US or Sweden. Still, that didn't stop the level of crime in both the US and Sweden to increase dramatically since the second World War.

[swanberger]

In conclusion. You should propably study more economics and economic history. You should check your facts. You should think more critically about what you've heard about Sweden. I was born and raised here, and I still live here. I have studied economics and the historical facts. I know what I am talking about. You, I am sorry to say, don't.

[parispeter2]

Thanks for this. I did actually study economics at university, and wrote an essay on the Swedish model! But it's true that I'm not an expert on the subject. But as I said, wealth is not the main consideration for me - as everyone knows, money doesn't bring happiness, and the wealthiest nations are not necessarily the happiest. So I prefer to consider things like quality of education, levels of violence, extreme poverty etc. And here Sweden comes out on top.

[cropperb]

"... I prefer to consider things like quality of education, levels of violence, extreme poverty etc. And here Sweden comes out on top."

Top?!

Sweden has among the highest debt-per-person ratio of any western nation. To the extent that they have anything, they've borrowed it.

[parispeter2]

You kindly repeat all my main criteria, and then refuse to pay any attention to them! - perhaps you think that levels of education, poverty and violence simply don't matter? (but even on levels of debt, the US is hardly a model by any objective standard as it's only kept afloat on Chinese and other countries' finance!)

[nine9s]

Invoking US debt doesn't wash because as cropper said, Sweden's is still higher. Also, quality of education and levels of violence have nothing to do with how much wealth is redistributed. And I doubt that the US and Sweden are that different when it comes to extremes in poverty, but that's an empirical question that I may be wrong about. Swanberger, can you help out?

[nine9s]

Parispeter, you have kindly conceded that Sweden's economic system doesn't work. Can we now expect you to renounce the Swedish model because it doesn't work? Or do I hope for too much?

[swanberger]

It didn't work. Which was expected by everyone except social democrats. During the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s Sweden went from being the third richest country in the world, according to the OECD, to the 15th richest country in the world. This while the US is still among the five richest, just as it was in 1970!

[swanberger]

However, in the late 1960s the social democrats turned radical. During the 1970s they heavily increased the size of the government. The welfare state expanded and the taxes were increased. In the 1960s the tax pressure amounted to about 30% of the GDP. By the early 1980s it went over 50%!

[swanberger]

The social democrats didn't get to hold office until the 1930s. During their first 30 years in power they were very pragmatic. They left the economy pretty much as it were before they took office. By the early 1960s, the Swedish government had roughly the same size as the US government have today, i.e., about 25-30% of GDP.

[swanberger]

To the degree Sweden is wealthy it is not due to the social democrats. That's a myth. Sweden became wealthy not thanks to the welfare state or the government interventions in the economy, but DESPITE them. Swedens rise from one the poorest countries in Europe in the 19th century, to one of the wealthies nations in the world around 1970, was entirely the result of it's high degree of capitalism.

[swanberger]

The US is in fact much wealthier. Just to give you one indication, which is mentioned in the report I referred to earlier: about 25% of the households in the US earn an income of 25 000 dollars or less. Well, in Sweden 40% earns an income of 25 000 dollars or less!

[swanberger]

One more thing. If Sweden were a state in the US, then it would be among the poorest. For more facts, check this out: timbro . com / euvsusa /

[swanberger]

Recently the swedish translations of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead were re-released. And both books have been selling quite well.

[nine9s]

Hey cropperb, Newton's Principia was published in 1687, not 1676.

[cropperb]

Ummmm.... let me check my sources. Yikes.

[cropperb]

Oh, right, of course, sorry! 1687 instead of 1676. So it was published exactly 100 years before the Constitution of the United States. Not the Dec of Ind. Sorry, my mistake. Thanks for pointing that out. But 'Wealth of Nations' was published in 1776.

[ScientificDiscussion]

"Its fashionable for about the last hundred years or so"... Well that just says it all! Nice of you to finally admit that you practice science from the 19. century:)

[ScientificDiscussion]

I think you should start using books that arent politically biased...

[jiffy2001]

Good luck in finding them.

[GravityExNihilo]

Seriously, everything this guy ever takes in is seriously slanted. It's like he rejects the non-biased stuff because the biased stuff is clearly more correct. These are the true signs of a bigot.

[RussellsParadox]

It's really easy to shout, "biased!" at every source somebody points to. Not as easy to back it up.

[ScientificDiscussion]

To Russellsparadox. I take it that your comment wasnt for me? I have already commented on why the book shouldnt be used and accounted for why the idea of a "dark" age is ridiculous...

[TheGreatestGreatApe]

Hmmm, I disagree about the Romans.

[cropperb]

Why do you disagree? I grant that Rome advanced legal theory and embraced the omnipresent state, which the Greeks loathed. But without meeting the Greeks, the Romans never would have been greater than any other random tribe you never heard of.

Greece rules history.

[TheGreatestGreatApe]

Mostly because of their architecture, city planning, road system, engineering, and warfare. I know they took lots of stuff from the kickass greeks, but I don't think they were in the dark age period. Without the Greeks and Romans, our country would not be what it is now. Our Constitution is inspired by Roman law.

[cropperb]

Our constitution is also inspired by Greek law. The founding fathers were intimately aware of Aristotle's study of over 150 Greek constitutions. The founding fathers were primarily Aristotelian.

[TheGreatestGreatApe]

I've read references to both. I havn't read indepthly yet however. I gave my reasons for not thinking Rome was the start of the dark ages.

[nine9s]

Yikes! I should have watched more of the video before I endorsed it. It starts out great. It starts out saying we're in deep trouble because of bad education, lack of reason, and a rejection of the intellectual life even by intellectuals. Then it says we're in trouble because of globalization and too much technology and individualism. Full of bald assertions about American lack of community.

[nine9s]

Yeah, I've now watched all four videos, like you said, and I totally rescind my endorsement of "Dark Ages America." Just another luddite romanticization of physical labor and privations, full of vague assertions about antisocial, friendless and stupid Americans.

Actual quote: "Who needs a CD? I had vinyl records in my youth and they worked just fine!"

[TheGreatestGreatApe]

That guy is wack.

[parispeter2]

Well, I'd agree that he's going a little far here. But the general idea that we are manipulated into having all kinds of stuff we don't need is valid I believe.

[TheGreatestGreatApe]

It's needed for our economy. I've researched the origin of that way back. I think it's a good thing. Why not feel good about buying a product? That sort of thing does not work with my type of mind, but I don't see a problem with it or self promoting which he is against(why not inform others about your positive aspects?). I think he reflects at his past too much. He has some points but it's so skewed. I'm not sure if he is pro communism?

[parispeter2]

Are humans there to serve the economy, or is the economy there to serve humans? The problem with feeling good about a product is that having the latest gadget isn't, when you think about it two seconds, what makes us happy in life, thought this is what we're led to believe, and many really believe it. The problem with self-promotion is that we end up believing our own rhetoric, whereas we need to be able to see our faults in order to correct them and advance.

[TheGreatestGreatApe]

It depends what makes you happy in life. You're only self promoting outside, inside you should be critiquing and improving. Others are also kind to criticize you :) .

[cropperb]

What's all this about service? I'm talking about freedom. You do what you want, I'll do what I want. You go meditate or whatever and I'll build a skyscraper. We'll see whose happy.

[parispeter2]

That's called the illusion of choice. You need to be educated and know about the different ways in which men have tried to find happiness to know which options are open to you. But people are not educated, except by the TV set and the advertisers who tell them ceaselessly that being happy is about buying their products or having a glamorous lifestyle like the stars. And due to lack of education they believe it.

[nine9s]

Ultimately it's not a question of "a little stuff" or "a lot of stuff"; it's a matter of *consciously-chosen* stuff. If a lot of gadgets help you achieve your purpose in life, then have at it. If they don't, then by focusing on trivia you may be throwing your life and your happiness away. As long as people operate consciously and not automatically, the question of "stuff" resolves itself.

[parispeter2]

If people "operated consciously and not automatically" then they simply wouldn't choose gadgets with the idea of improving their happiness. Gadgets don't help ANYBODY to achieve their happiness (I'm not saying they don't serve a purpose). It's here that you start to realize how crucial education is.

[nine9s]

What's the purpose that gadgets serve if not to increase, directly or indirectly, our happiness? Certainly the presence or absence of physical objects can have profound effects on our happiness. Would you be just as happy without computers, telephones, antibiotics, toilets, TVs and refrigerators? If so, why do you (I assume) choose to use them?

[parispeter2]

Good question - why indeed! There are many countries that don't have any of these things and westerners who visit them are often surprised to observe that the people there seem as happy or happier than people in the west (obviously I'm not talking about places where people are starving to death). If happiness is the ultimate criterion, then perhaps we're not as clever as we like to think we are.

[nine9s]

I'd agree with you if I equated happiness with contentment. A person can be content with filth and squalor, ignorance and pervasive disease. Contentment in these conditions is a vice, not a virtue.

Contentment isn't what makes life worth living. The happiness that can be had while not doing, having, wanting, or knowing anything is a shallow happiness indeed.

[parispeter2]

Why do you think that people who live without modern technology necessarily live without "doing, having, wanting, or knowing anything"? And why do you think they live in "filth and squalor, ignorance and pervasive disease". Neither of these assertions is justified.

[nine9s]

"Doing, having, wanting and knowing" are all enhanced by modern society. Of course people outside modernity do all these things, but the scope of their knowledge and action is severely limited by their privation. People without access to books and the internet are at a terrible disadvantage, even though books and the internet are "gadgets" that, according to you, can never make anyone happy.

[parispeter2]

I wouldn't put books in the category of "gadgets" - people had them before the US existed. As for the internet, I don't think it's so essential to happiness. I think it's interesting because people from different cultures learn from each other e.g. people in the US realize that noone outside their fine land gives a squirrel's nuts about Ayn Rand. But I think people in Ancient Greece or Renaissance Europe did not suffer from not having internet.

[nine9s]

My whole point on this thread is that objects help us achieve happiness. Just imagine what ancient Greece would have been like if they had an internet--imagine where WE'd be NOW if they did. The idea in "Dark Ages America" that technology is a net drain on human life is patently absurd. (BTW, I don't give a squirrel's nuts what anyone thinks of Ayn Rand. Most people here have never heard of her anyway.)

[cropperb]

parispeter said: "noone outside [the USA] gives a squirrel's nuts about Ayn Rand."

For your information, peter, there are very knowledgable Objectivists subscribed to this very channel in countries rangin across the Netherlands, Seweden, Australia, Korea (south), and a guy in France (go figure).

Hell, Leonard Peikoff was Candian and Rand herself was a Russian immigrant. Ayn Rand advocated much more than freedom - she advocated REASON.

[parispeter2]

"A guy in France" hahaha and how many in those other countries: 2,3? And what are their names: Jack, Richard, Kerry, Susan...?

[swanberger]

I am one of the subscribers. I am from Sweden. And my name is Carl Svanberg.

[parispeter2]

Cropper take off your mask I know it's you!

[swanberger]

No, I am not Cropper. I am Carl Svanberg. I even have a blog on swedish: svanberg . wordpress . com

[swanberger]

*ARG* Correction: "I even have a blog IN swedish"

[parispeter2]

OK OK I believe you. Well it's a pity you don't support your fine Swedish social democracy! Do you think that the US, with its highest rate of gun deaths, highest prison population, and worst poverty of any developed country (not to speak of its disastrous foreign policy) is a happier place than your country? OK the US isn't AR, but it is nearer to her ideas.

[swanberger]

Let me put it like this. The social democrats are evil and bad. They have pretty much destroyed Sweden. The US is a much better country in several respects. It is despite all the statist controls in the economy more just and free than Sweden. The alleged facts you mention don't change that, even if they were true. If the US ever turns out like Sweden, then there's no more hope for the world. I am planning to leave Sweden for the US in the future.

[parispeter2]

But Sweden is one of the richest countries in the world, and richer per head than the US I believe! But - and this is more important in my eyes - it's also a country more at ease with itself, with a much lower rate of violence. And you have had social democracy since the 19th century I believe, so it's difficult to say they've destroyed Sweden - they MADE modern Sweden!

[swanberger]

There is a lot of myths about Sweden. Not only here in Sweden but also in the US. You've got the wrong impression. While it is true that Sweden is not poor like a Third world country. It is pretty wealthy although not at all wealthier than the US. That's not true.

[parispeter2]

Absolutely! I'm pleased I persuaded at least one person to watch it - but make sure you watch all four parts. Look at anticonsumer's other videos: it's what's best on YT in my opinion!

[parispeter2]

I would tend to agree with Murray: the Romans excelled in legal theory, architecture and a few other areas but not science or philosophy (for a complete list see on YT "Monty Python: What have the Romans done for us?"!). But after Monty Python, you MUST watch "Morris Berman: Dark Ages America" to see why we might be entering a new dark ages.

[cropperb]

I have removed the following from above, as 9nines recsinded it, but I shall allow it to remain on the record:

"Thanks for the link to "Dark Ages America." Everyone stop what you're doing and go watch it."

By the way, we have been in a dark age since sometime in the mid or later 1800's. Look at the 1900's: slaughter, war, rockets, bombs. The 20th century was dark dark dark. USSR and Nazis. What else need be said?

[RussellsParadox]

What about radio receivers, air conditioning, the Theory of Relativity, synthetic plastic, color photography, talking motion pictures, stainless steel, arc welders, insulin, television, penicillin, electron microscopes, jet engines, synthetic rubber, nuclear fission, microwave ovens, transistors, lasers, gene splicing, personal computers, MRI, cellphones, doplar radars, the internet, and saran-wrap?

[cropperb]

May I add Tang, digital photography, velcro, interplanetary communication, space travel, open heart surgery, the pace maker, etc...

Still, I believe that the 1800's progressed far more, and far more quickly, than we did in the 20th century. Read some books by Stuart Holbrook, a historian specializing in the 1800's.

[RussellsParadox]

Mmmm, Tang...

Maybe that's true, but I doubt any sane person would rather live a late nineteenth-century lifestyle than that of the late twentieth or early twenty-first.

[nine9s]

"Charles Murray is also a geneticist, claiming that success in economies is in part a matter of the genes people inherit..." Yes, IN PART. How is that so controversial? If you're born to smart parents, you're likely to be smart yourself, and thus more likely to succeed in your indeavors.

I once saw a video where Murray said, "There is nothing a person deserves less than his IQ."

[RussellsParadox]

Well, that's a pile of bullshit, isn't it? How about, "There is nothing a person deserves less than his ACHIEVEMENT (or inheritance, or gifts...)?"

[nine9s]

Achievement is about successful action; inheritance is about luck of birth. I find it strange that you put them in the same category. When he says "People don't deserve their IQ," all he's saying is that they didn't earn the baseline IQ potential that they were born with. Now, in my opinion he leans a bit too hard towards the "nature" side as opposed to "nurture," but my point with this quote was that he's not a snob that regards non-geniuses as inferior beings.

[RussellsParadox]

um... whoops. I misread that. I thought that by "There is nothing a person deserves less than his IQ," he meant, "A person deserves at least the equivalent of his IQ, and nothing less." Which doesn't make much sense, now that I think about it. :D

[RussellsParadox]

And now that I know what it really means, I still think it's bullshit. In what sense can we say that any inherent aspect of anyone's nature is deserved or undeserved? Before a person has specific genes and a specific level of cognitive potential, he doesn't exist. What does a non-existent person deserve? And while I'm at it, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? :D

[nine9s]

I don't think we disagree here. IQ outside the realm of "deserving," which I think is what Murray was getting at.

[Joshbuckler]

Wow, very good video, Mr Cropper.

[ScientificDiscussion]

Charles Alan Murray (born 1943) is a controversial libertarian American policy writer and race researcher. In addition, Charles Murray is also a geneticist, claiming that success in economies is in part a matter of the genes people inherit...

Also Murray has received grants from the right-wing Bradley Foundation to support his scholarship!!! cont.

[ScientificDiscussion]

Ones again your choice in scholars/books is unscientific

[ScientificDiscussion]

I mean the term "dark" was first used in the renaissance by the humanists who wanted to PROMOTE ancient greece, thereby they deliberantly chose not to adress the many wonders from THE MIDDLE AGES... For instance the Vikings ruled with great technological advances occupying most of the knowned world... In any case the idea of using the teleological construction on a global scale is ludicris...

[jiffy2001]

Is that because the author doesn't use the scientific method, or because he doesn't happen to come to the conclusion you'd like?

[mikecampochiaro]

Ah yes the age of St.Anselm and the logical proof of God through Ontology.