Hello everybody!
I've found out the existence of a community like this couple of weeks ago and was browsing though the different threads and topics. Very interesting indeed! I am no linguist, neither genecist or scientist, just a history/science/languages "lover" with a recent interest on genetics.
Welcome to Eupedia Sakattack.
I don't know how common is to dig out topics and add anything to discussions that look "closed", but I wanted to share something concerning the "smartness" of the Ancient Greeks, which I find that can make some sense. BTW, is my first post, hope that you will find it interesting.
A high school teacher, philologue himself, Panagiotis Mitropetros, with some descent research and publishing, states the following:
"All the ancient pre-Greek civilizations (such as Egyptians, Babylonians, Hettites, Sumerians etc) had a vast amount of empirical knowledge and of course high levels of - what we call - IQ. What actually detered them of reaching the high standards of the - subsequant - Greeks, was the lack of definition, generalisation, rule and norm of those huge amount of info in order to achieve the transition from the empirical to theoretical; to create models and patterns. This is actually the difference between science and the simple gathering of knowledge.
This took place in the beginning of the 6th cetury BC, at the shores of the Greek colonies (Magna Grecia, shores of Macedonia, East Aegean Islands and Asia Minor) is consired as big step forward and eventually marks the 1st Scientific Revolution*.
All these cool Presocratic guys (Leucippus, Democritus, Thales, Empedocles etc) took advantage of some social and political conditions of their places and times in order to find themselves in this revolution. In terms of politics, these conditions where not ideal during the era of the Pharaos for example or under a powerful King; our guys needed some freedom to express themselves, to question stuff and to develop their findings. That's why place matters and all these great ideas started evolving at the circumferences of the Greek world and not in the metrοpolises of that time, because even if Athens, Sparta or Thebes were not under the rule of an Emperor, let's say, they had strong aristocracy who would not welcome any new or radical idea. But in Clazomenea, in Ephesus, in Miletus, in Abdera, in Crotone, in Taranto etc people were enjoying a much tolerant regime and could formulate easier heretic opinions and challenge the 'authorities', by the evidential procedure that they were following.
Therefore, this huge bomb exploded there, at that time, (societies where some how ready and the knowledge was adequate enough, even some centuries ago, also among people from other civilazations as mentioned above) and not anywhere else in the Ancient World.
So, till know, we have:
1. Knowledge
2. Ideal political and social enviroment
3. Evidentian procedure
But were these enough for the bomb to explode? Looks like we need some other stuff, and these had been found in language.
Briefly:
1. The article.
In Homer for instance, we don't find articles. He just sees and points. This "invention", is very crucial in order to develop critical thinking, because it gives you the ability to think of something (whatever that is) which is not present. Whidthens your mind.
2. The creation of the abstract nouns.
Those Presocratic cool kids where the first to use terms such as "vision, braveness, justice". Till then, we could say that someone is brave but not that he possesses braveness. These nouns were just not there and their invention is also a great thing, even though it does not sounds so.
3. Ratio.
It does not sound as a language thing, but in fact it is. A book can be bigger than another one. This was known. But there was no word for a double-sized one. When these linguistic terms had been defined, the whole scientific and pneumatic procedure went many steps further. Even the reasoning and the cogitations of Aristotle let's say, have their roots on that linguistic invention. Anaximander, thanks bro!"
Well, I am completely fond of his opinions.
So there was not only a matter of how smart they were. They took advantage of these political and social situations and were free to practice whatever they had in their - smart enough - mind. One thing lead to another, Socrates, Aristotle etc followed the path and here we are now.
* Accorind to him, the 2nd Scientific Revolution was actually the Industrial one (more precise the knowledge created in order to get there) and the 3rd happened in the end of the 19th and the 20th century, with Einstein (ToR) but also later with the Quantum Theory and the Theory of Chaos.
Very interesting. He sees the civilisational progress as a form of strict organized systems, and sees these systems as essential to the progress. This compartmentalization and organization being the driving force of free thinking, invention and creation.
I agree that having well defined educational and political systems is best vehicle to achieve fast progress, or at least faster progress than the others have. However, I'm not sure if these "well oiled" systems are so essential to existence the basic skills of creativity, logic, science, technology, etc. The wheel, pot or a metal knife was invented and widely implemented without the help of any social or political system. Though systems might be essential for public acceptance of new radical ideas and producing ideas in volumes, like a good education system and inspiring teachers would.
In my mind all this ancient Greek success was more "organic" and evolutionary than sudden success of good systems. First of all Panagiotis ignores most important factor of their success, the good economy. The issue on time in modern Greece, I would say. Good economy stands behind full bellies of citizens, therefore people being in better mood, open mind and tolerant, and fewer revolts and sensless killings. Likewise good economy produces better health, fewer mortality of kids, therefore fast growing populations, more hands to work, and heads to invent, create, learn and teach. Important, because knowledge has strong cumulative effect. There are plenty of examples from the past and not only for Greece, of economic well being dictating creativity, progress and prosperity, .
Greek and later Roman prosperity starts right after Bronze Age Collapse/Dark Ages. Just recently we learned that there was sharp global cooling for few decades leading to Bronze Age Collapse. Let's keep in mind that ancient economy was based mainly in agriculture. 80-90% people worked on farms. When food production was cut in half due to colder or drier weather and many people died, especially in Cities. Mind you that the cities harbored schools, teachers, philosophers, actors, and many vital trades. City was gone and so was most of accumulated knowledge.
In Medieval times we had another episode of cooling, failed crops, leading to Dark Ages and lost of knowledge. In warmer Middle Ages we see growing prosperity in Europe culminating in Renaissance. Knowledge flourishes, beautiful grandiose projects were built, and humanity comes to forefront of education with new radical ideas. This process is somewhat halted by little Ice Age of 17-18 century, though we are saved from another dark ages this time (Why, could be a good subject for future discussion). 20th century (warming trend) brings the biggest prosperity for all, at least in Western World. This new prosperity brings good paying jobs to all men and women, collapse of old empires, democratisation, liberalization, technical and scientific revolution, tolerant societies and many radical ideas in many fields.
Summarizing, I really believe, that economy is the base for our social, educational and even political success. Without good economy, or economy at all, our life collapses to pretty much a cave or dirt house settings and end of civilization. Of course the other social systems are important too, giving the effect of feedback loop to economy for betterment of all.