Philosophy Discussion Forums

Greta wrote: ↑January 30th, 2021, 3:56 pm

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑January 30th, 2021, 11:10 am

Greta wrote: ↑January 29th, 2021, 8:03 pm

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑January 29th, 2021, 3:28 pm

The so called "wild" was far less brutal than all early civilisations.
Civilisations emerge through power. The power of a few over the many, who may be controlled with force and ideologies.
The archaeological evidence from the Levant where civilisation began demonstates a falling of morality and the draconian explotation of the population, except from the ones with the robes and the ones with the weapons.

If life in the wild was safer and better, then humans would not flock into cities.

Humans never "flocked to cities".
When civilisation was created, people fled FROM them.

Urbanisation has always increased.

Not relevant. This does not support any genetic theory of civilisation.

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑January 30th, 2021, 5:58 pm

Greta wrote: ↑January 30th, 2021, 3:56 pm

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑January 30th, 2021, 11:10 am

Greta wrote: ↑January 29th, 2021, 8:03 pm
If life in the wild was safer and better, then humans would not flock into cities.

Humans never "flocked to cities".
When civilisation was created, people fled FROM them.

Urbanisation has always increased.

Not relevant. This does not support any genetic theory of civilisation.

It's not a genetic claim, it's stating the fact that people have increasingly chosen an urban existence. Living wild is dangerous. The history of torture methods makes clear that the noble savage trope is false; that tribal people are at least as capable of cruelty as urbanites.

Greta wrote: ↑January 30th, 2021, 6:10 pm

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑January 30th, 2021, 5:58 pm

Greta wrote: ↑January 30th, 2021, 3:56 pm

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑January 30th, 2021, 11:10 am
Humans never "flocked to cities".
When civilisation was created, people fled FROM them.

Urbanisation has always increased.

Not relevant. This does not support any genetic theory of civilisation.

It's not a genetic claim, it's stating the fact that people have increasingly chosen an urban existence.

They've had no choice. Most urbanisation is due to being turfed off lands. It still happens.

Living wild is dangerous.

No it is not. The basic dangers were sorted out along the way, by an increasingly evolved set of skills. Humans are the top predator. Urban centres are far more dangerous than the country.

The history of torture methods makes clear that the noble savage trope is false; that tribal people are at least as capable of cruelty as urbanites.

That's possibly the funniest thing you have yet said, Mass slavery is a civilised activity.
If people were so keen to "flock to " the cities, how do you account for the extand hunter/gatherer societies that still mange to cling to existence despite persecution and deforestation.
You should educate yourself and read Millenium by David Mayberry Lewis.
Then read Colin Turnbull's The Forest People
What I see here from you is you just making up **** in the spot based on your comic book notions os black savages.
And now you are trying to backtrack on your genetic claim, which was very clearly stated in the post I orginally responded to.

You clearly did not study anthropology. How could you not be aware of the horrific torture methods used by tribal peoples that are every bit as bad as those perpetrated by urbanites? Consider the Iroquois Mourning Wars or the Cree raiding parties https://www.cbc.ca/history/EPCONTENTSE1EP1CH2LE.html

In the land of the Great Lakes, the farming Huron, or Wendat, lived near the Iroquois, the most warlike of all the eastern people. For generations the Wendat and the Iroquois were enemies, locked in a cycle of deadly raids and fierce retaliation. War was entrenched in the Iroquois culture, demanding a gruesome reciprocity and encompassing a spiritual component.

If prisoners were taken alive, they were tortured to death in lengthy ceremonies; the prisoner's skin stripped in pieces, his fingers cut off, fire applied to his genitals, his scalp taken and the ghastly wound cauterized with pitch. Though it was extraordinarily cruel, there were odd elements of compassion. The victim was given water and his wounds were tended to before the ritual continued, a grisly pas-de-deux between torturer and prisoner.

The public ceremony was an affirmation of a people's solidarity in the face of their enemies. They would be protected. Their warriors could strike fear into their enemies' hearts. And the invader would be destroyed. It ended finally with the warrior's beheading on a scaffold. It was to everyone's advantage if the prisoner died well. The villagers ate parts or all of his body and absorbed his courage.

1) Your reckless claims have been proved wrong again - I do not make **** up as per your ad hom above. I do wonder if you did actually study anthropology, though. I worked with anthropologists and other scientists for years and I am not seeing any similarities between their capacity to sensible argue a point and your reliance on personal attacks.

2) I never spoke of indigenous people as "comic book black savages". A wild and childish claim.

Indigenous people are H. sapiens like the rest of us and, thus, as capable of odious behaviour. The trope of the "noble savage" that you seemingly endorse - that indigenous people are inherently more moral than urbanites - is patronising, racist and naive.