In 1025, Private Letters between two Catholic Scholars - Raoul of Liège and Ragimbold of Cologne tell us that Catholic Europe lacked basic geometrical knowledge such as the sum of the angles of a triangle makeup 180 degrees. Why was this?
The reason was simple, Latin Christian Europe had been cutoff for 800 years from the Science & Philosophy of the Ancient Greeks after the Roman Empire collapsed & fluency in Ancient Greek vanished from Western Europe.
Latin Europe did not have its own scientific system.
For nearly 800 years, the only Platonic & Aristotelian texts available to western europe were partial latin translations of the originals (such as the Timaeus of Plato or the Aristotelian Corpus of Boethius). No Euclidean geometry was available to them either. Dark Ages.
On a side note, the 12th century renaissance happened when plato & aristotle were reliably brought back to latin europe when the spanish reconquered the moorish kingdoms, whose libraries housed arabic translations of virtually all of ancient hellenic philosophy.
The arabs had conquered the greek speaking parts of byzantine in the 800s and taken prompt efforts to translate all original works into arabic. The private library of the abbasid caliph harun al rashid the baghdad house of wisdom housed the creme de la creme of greek science.
The real question that we must ask is - why have only a handful of ancient civilizations on earth been capable of producing their own scientific & philosophical systems? (India, Greece & China)
Keep in mind, the Arabs & Christians both used Aristotle well until the 1500s even!
Greco-Roman science, poetics, natural philosophy diffused across the jewish christian and muslim worlds. The Indian system diffused across south, central, east and SE Asia.
We must seek to investigate what made these civilizations become so creative in the first place.
For this same creativity is seen in Europe once again from the 1400s which leads to the production of the modern european system which all of us use today. Some other civilization will create a new & better system someday.
Understanding the past might clear up the future.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The latter would marry their children to a Hindu of any caste before they would to the former. As Ambedkar had said, marital relations are the ultimate test of who is part of the tribe.
You will never be part of the family bc in the subcontinent Hindu vs Muslim is supra alles
All these posts are a waste of time to take seriously, I’m just writing this as PSA for people who respond to this stuff.
We already know who’s part of the tribe and who isn’t just by the marital relations test. Everything else is a waste with no real life consequences.
Cope. Live in the real world, not your online “communities”
In the real world, most Hindus want their kids to marry Hindus of same caste but would reluctantly be ok with other Hindus than a Muslim (automatic outcasted even for urbanite modern types)
When I was young and in America, I always knew I was Indian and my country was India. That's because I knew what it felt like to be an unquestioned majority in India and had an instinctive sense of "ownership" of the country.
In America, I saw my subcontinental friends act like confused ducklings because their liberal teachers, the zeitgeist and their civics classes told them they were also Americans, but it was a hasty and uncertain reality, which they hesitatingly accepted or rejected.
I tried to knock some sense into them, but it never worked properly. I always got told "You just think like a white guy, you dont think like a desi!"
By thinking like a white guy, they meant my instinctive tribal views on "who belongs" made them feel very queer at times.
Israel is a state run by a population (Ashkenazi Jews) with an average IQ of 115 surrounded by Arab states with an IQ of 80. It’s not too hard to see why such comical scenarios ensure.
The average Ashkenazi is more than 2 SD smarter than the average Arab Muslim.
People running Israeli intelligence would be 1 SD smarter than the average Ashkenazi, think an IQ of 130. For reference, more than 15% of Ashkenazi would have an IQ higher than 130.
Not even 1% of Arabs (average IQ 80-85) would have an IQ over 130.
Nice thread, since you are being candid and following historical trends somewhat respectfully, let me just provide my own response to it.
It was very difficult to draw strict lines of separation in theological identity in pre-modern primary religions, so what makes up Hinduism *theologically* is not a clear cut bullet point list. The identity of Hindu has always been subjective but it comes down to what Savarkar has said. Hindus are a people, tied by genetics, culture, language and ancestral connections to 1 homeland. Hindus are those people whose homeland is bhArata.
There is a common philosophical base of Vedanta-Upanishads in India from which all sects source beliefs (historically, from a materialist analysis). Sikhi clearly also sources concepts from this, like literally every Hindu sect, but all the sects have their own interpretation of those concepts or build on them further.
- karma, reincarnation (punarjanma), individual soul (atman), world soul (brahman), panentheism (brahman pervades everything, and everything is sourced in it), concept of dharma, reverence for cows etc
What defines a sect from a religion now from that sense is completely based on self-identity. MANY Hindu sects can just make an argument that we are totally different than *xyz other sect* and hence not the same "religion"
However, reasonably, people understand they share a common identity based on many things and don't feel the need to do so.
Sure, there was a "Sikh identity" but there was also a Gaudiya Vaishnav identity, Shri Vaishnav identity, Pashupatin identity, Lingayat identity etc historically.
There was even a Shrautin vs non Shrautin identity, this is the point. My point was at a time in history in the 20th century, a portion of Sikhs chose to further a separation from the rest of Hindu civilization for a variety of reasons and started rejecting both habits and scriptural ideas found in Gurbani itself.
Lot of Sikhs bet on the strategy of completely divorcing themselves from the bad reputation and stereotypes of India by calling themselves “Punjabis, Sikhs” and believing in that exceptionalism. Indians obviously took glee in it when North Americans started rejecting this shtick.
I’m also a Punjabi, but why should I do Punjabi exceptionalism? If I really want to divorce myself from India’s bad reputation, then who cares about ethnicity? I should just bring in my caste (Khatri) which is responsible for most of Punjabi history as well as being elite human capital in modernity.
The reality is regional and linguistic exceptionalism is cope. The only thing that’s real in India is caste and we don’t do caste exceptionalism because it’s impolite and we wanted to build a unified civilizational identity by sacrificing our own caste for wider goals like Hindutva/Dharma. Lot of non-Khatri Punjabis just didn’t get this. You lead from ahead, not from behind.
White people have enemies in all kinds of violent and lecherous races living in their countries that kill and rape their family members but on Twitter they chose to just seethe against the most non violent and productive immigrant group 24/7
I get it no one wants their country or home to be overran by foreigners but literally what choice do you have at this point? Seethe and abuse a group that commits no crime, minds its own business, earns more than native Whites, pays taxes? That's the ideal kind of immigrant.
If I was becoming a minority in my own land
I wouldn't spend all my time abusing people who do me no harm but just look different. I'd rather abuse people who are violent criminals and physically harm my family or relations, or threaten to do so. Or people who make my society unsafe.