I'm asking in the context of the last say, 400 years or so, since that's when Europe (and the US eventually) really started to take off.
In part I'm also asking, did imperialism give western nations a head start, or was it other factors such as economic freedom, trade, culture, etc.?
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Why 3º world nations are so far behind the 1º world?
1º Corrupt leaders and political parties
2º Distrust and envy among neighbors
3º Socialism
4º Huge remittance and charity donations from 1st world country which ultimately supresses 3rd world country's to remain in the state that they are
5º Huge amount of emmigration to financially support the means of point 4 (average age in honduras is 25)
6º Huge amounts of dept and ecnomic termoil brought on by the IMF.
Statism is a religion.
Lilburne:This historical accident was the nature of the fall of the Roman Empire. For the first time in history, the brain and the muscle of the state were sundered. The existence of an independent Catholic Church challenging and hobbling European rulers (who themselves challenged and hobbled the Church in return). This resulted in the high middle ages and its largely ignored industrial and intellectual revolutions.
But, while the "largely ignored" revolutions (would you mind elucidating more on that point) lead to nowhere, while in England, and Scotland, where there was a rather interventionist state, the industrial revolution bloomed, and prospered. So I don't think that this point can properly explain the historical evidence, unless you have some that I have never seen.
Lilburne:The stronger property rights that arose under conditions of political fragmentation and weakness led to dramatic innovations in the harnessing of water and wind power and in agricultural techniques, which in turn led to an explosion in the production of food, metals, textiles, and other goods.
Its ironic, the strongest victory for property rights, at least in Great Britain, was the result of state action with enclosurement.
Lilburne:r and in agricultural techniques, which in turn led to an explosion in the production of food, metals, textiles, and other goods. A linguistically unified network of clerics sundered from unified secular power fostered the rise of Aristoteleanism and the university system, which engendered a bourgeoning intellectual class of rapidly increasing sophistication not beholden to a central state.
It was the advent of empiricism, not the rise of Aristoteleanism, that best prepared Europe for the industrial revolution, and the scientific revolution that followed yielded much of the technological knowledge that lead to the industrial revolution.
Lilburne:With the breakdown of the independence of the Catholic Church in the 14th century, the state became resurgent, and economic growth plummeted. But the seeds of freedom had already been sown. When the spread of resurgent autocracy reached England in the form of the Tudor dynasty, it met with stiff resistance, which eventually evolved into the English Civil War. This war and the conflicts following it dramatically weakened the English state, which made possible the industrial revolution in that country as well as the spread of liberal philosophy.
The English state was pretty powerful, and was rather active in the economic lives of its citizens - see Karl Polyani's The Great Transformation.
I am becoming a Burkean Whig.
- F.A. Hayek
Have you read Karl Polanyi? If so have you also read the works addressing and challenging his own (esp. on antiquity)?
Oh and this...
is unsubstantiated. Science proceeded regardless of what "empiricists" mused about one day or the other. In fact, the "empiricists" (like Locke) tried to model their beliefs on the scientific advances of the time, leading to abject failures like mechanism. A proper estimation of reason and free thought, and not anything on behalf of the "empiricists", led to scientific revolutions... it was the general philosophical climate of the time.
To darkness I condemn you...
Jon Irenicus:Have you read Karl Polanyi? If so have you also read the works addressing and challenging his own?
Can you actually make arguments against Polyani, or does merely speaking his name as if only an idiot would even consider him reference to quote suffice?
Jon Irenicus: It was the advent of empiricism, not the rise of Aristoteleanism, that best prepared Europe for the industrial revolution, and the scientific revolution that followed yielded much of the technological knowledge that lead to the industrial revolution. is unsubstantiated. Science proceeded regardless of what "empiricists" mused about one day or the other. In fact, the "empiricists" (like Locke) tried to model their beliefs on the scientific advances of the time, leading to abject failures like mechanism. A proper estimation of reason and free thought, and not anything on behalf of the "empiricists", lead to scientific revolutions...
is unsubstantiated. Science proceeded regardless of what "empiricists" mused about one day or the other. In fact, the "empiricists" (like Locke) tried to model their beliefs on the scientific advances of the time, leading to abject failures like mechanism. A proper estimation of reason and free thought, and not anything on behalf of the "empiricists", lead to scientific revolutions...
Well, science barely proceeded before the rise of empiricism in the 1500s, hitherto the only science to have truly progressed beyond the Classical understanding, Roger Bacon's work in optics never caught on (Roger Bacon was also a strong adherent to empiricism), in Europe was astronomy in Copernicus' De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium. It was the experimental works of scientists such as Sir Francis Bacon, an empiricist, that lead the way for the scientific revolution. Empiricism is far more than the work of John Locke, I would personally say that Bacon's Novum Organum, from which all modern empirical methodologies can be traced back to, is more important than Locke's own works in the perspective of empiricism that I discussed. In addition, mechanism was not an "abject (failure)"; rather, mechanism was a scientific paradigm that proved extremely useful, maybe even necessary, for science for at least a century ( see Karl Popper's essay "Of Clouds and Clocks") so to refer to it as such is utter nonsense. Furthermore, the scientific revolution was not brought on by whatever "proper estimation of reason and free thought" you speak of; rather, its catalyst was empiricism, and the new experimental techniques pioneered by both Galileo, and Bacon. The scientific revolution was the result of men testing hypotheses against nature rather than trying to use their reason; in fact, the latter brings to mind Descartes' attempts to reason the laws of motion, and we all know how that venture fared.
Can you actually answer my question as to whether you read him, or whether you're just name-dropping to seem smart?
Well, science barely proceeded before the rise of empiricism in the 1500s, hitherto the only science to have progressed was astronomy.
According to whom?
In addition, mechanism was not an "abject (failure)"; rather, mechanism was a scientific paradigm that proved extremely useful, maybe even necessary, for science for at least a century ( see Karl Popper's essay "Of Clouds and Clocks") so to refer to it as such is utter nonsense.
Yet it was a lot of nonsense, regardless of what good came of it.
Furthermore, the scientific revolution was not brought on by whatever "proper estimation of reason and free thought" you speak of; rather, its catalyst was empiricism, and the new experimental techniques pioneered by both Galileo, and Bacon. The scientific revolution was the result of men testing hypotheses against nature rather than trying to use their reason; in fact, the latter brings to mind Descartes' attempts to reason the laws of motion, and we all know how that venture fared.
Oh I see, you're going to try conflate reason with armchair reasoning. Cute trick. Too bad it won't work. Perhaps you genuinely are clueless of how Aristotle conceived of the scientific method when you wish to say that this stuff is all novel, as if before the empiricists no one had ever thought of it? Well?
laminustacitus:The scientific revolution was the result of men testing hypotheses against nature rather than trying to use their reason; in fact, the latter brings to mind Descartes' attempts to reason the laws of motion, and we all know how that venture fared.
laminustacitus:But, while the "largely ignored" revolutions (would you mind elucidating more on that point) lead to nowhere
Led to nowhere? The high middle ages were a time of tremendous economic growth.
laminustacitus:(would you mind elucidating more on that point)
During the middle ages, extensive water and wind mills peppered Europe like never before before. The increased energy thus harnessed and its automaticity had an explosive effect on productivity. Cereals grains were processed with unprecedented efficiency. The greater heat of medieval furnace technology initiated the true iron age, during which quality iron was available for mass productive use for the first time. There were huge improvements in agricultural technique, including in field rotation. The medieval harness unleashed the use of the horse in agriculture, which dramatically increased productivity. Scientific husbandry at monastery sheep farms led to an explosion in wool productivity. All this happened, and much much more.
laminustacitus:England, and Scotland, where there was a rather interventionist state, the industrial revolution bloomed, and prospered.
laminustacitus:The English state was pretty powerful, and was rather active in the economic lives of its citizens - see Karl Polyani's The Great Transformation.
England and Scotland was more interventionist in the late 17th and early 18th century than they themselves were later, but much less interventionist than other European countries at the time. Just think of France under Louis XIV and his successors.
laminustacitus:It was the advent of empiricism, not the rise of Aristoteleanism, that best prepared Europe for the industrial revolution, and the scientific revolution that followed yielded much of the technological knowledge that lead to the industrial revolution.
Yes, empiricism was an important correction of Aristotelean thought. But it sprang out of the seedbed of the European intellectual culture, which would have never been possible under the Caesaro-Papism that reigned over every other state in the world up until then. In fact, empiricism arose from the Franciscan intellectual tradition, which was a branch of Aristotelean scholasticism.
Human Action Comics Issues 1-6
I agree with your point about empiricism and technological development but that doesn't mean that all rationalism must be written off as useless.
It's funny because many of the empiricists had cranky ideas of their own. Both the rationalists and the empiricists shared a commitment to truth and reason. Leibniz independently discovered calculus. I dunno why some people wish to act like empiricists are the sole reason that science advanced...
Jon Irenicus:Can you actually answer my question as to whether you read him, or whether you're just name-dropping to seem smart?
Of course I've read Polyani.
Jon Irenicus: Well, science barely proceeded before the rise of empiricism in the 1500s, hitherto the only science to have progressed was astronomy. According to whom?
The historical record.
Jon Irenicus: In addition, mechanism was not an "abject (failure)"; rather, mechanism was a scientific paradigm that proved extremely useful, maybe even necessary, for science for at least a century ( see Karl Popper's essay "Of Clouds and Clocks") so to refer to it as such is utter nonsense. Yet it was a lot of nonsense, regardless of what good came of it.
It isn't nonsense; read Popper's "Of Clouds and Clocks" if you want to figure out why it isn't nonsense for I'm not going to go step by step here to prove it isn't. In addition, I highly doubt you're going to reject Newton's Principia as "a lot of nonsense" despite its very heavy mechanistic perspective.
Jon Irenicus: Furthermore, the scientific revolution was not brought on by whatever "proper estimation of reason and free thought" you speak of; rather, its catalyst was empiricism, and the new experimental techniques pioneered by both Galileo, and Bacon. The scientific revolution was the result of men testing hypotheses against nature rather than trying to use their reason; in fact, the latter brings to mind Descartes' attempts to reason the laws of motion, and we all know how that venture fared. Oh I see, you're going to try conflate reason with armchair reasoning. Cute trick. Too bad it won't work. Perhaps you genuinely are clueless of how Aristotle conceived of the scientific method when you wish to say that this stuff is all novel, as if before the empiricists no one had ever thought of it? Well?
Aristotle never experimented, nor did he ever recommend it in his works; while the scientific method very heavy on the experimental process. In fact, it is in their emphasis on experiments that both Bacon, and Galileo created the scientific method as we know it.
Lilburne: laminustacitus:England, and Scotland, where there was a rather interventionist state, the industrial revolution bloomed, and prospered. laminustacitus:The English state was pretty powerful, and was rather active in the economic lives of its citizens - see Karl Polyani's The Great Transformation. England and Scotland was more interventionist in the late 17th and early 18th century than they themselves were later, but much less interventionist than other European countries at the time. Just think of France under Louis XIV and his successors.
A nation being less interventionist than Louis XIV's France does not mean much.
Lilburne: laminustacitus:It was the advent of empiricism, not the rise of Aristoteleanism, that best prepared Europe for the industrial revolution, and the scientific revolution that followed yielded much of the technological knowledge that lead to the industrial revolution. Yes, empiricism was an important correction of Aristotelean thought. But it sprang out of the seedbed of the European intellectual culture, which would have never been possible under the Caesaro-Papism that reigned over every other state in the world up until then.
Yes, empiricism was an important correction of Aristotelean thought. But it sprang out of the seedbed of the European intellectual culture, which would have never been possible under the Caesaro-Papism that reigned over every other state in the world up until then.
I don't understand what your trying to assert here in the second sentance. From what I do understand, I would say that it is a baseless assertion seeing that Scholasticism thrived, all that the rise of empiricism would have necessitated is scholars becoming empiricists rather than Scholastics; there is no reason why Caesaro-Papism would have impeded empircism.
Lilburne: In fact, empiricism arose from the Franciscan intellectual tradition, which was a branch of Aristotelean scholasticism.
One cannot underestimate the effect of the Muslim philosophers, like Alhazen, on the advent of empiricism.
laminustacitus:A nation being less interventionist than Louis XIV's France does not mean much.
I'm just pointing to France as one example. The rest of continental Europe was also hugely interventionist in the late 17th and early 18th centuries.
laminustacitus:From what I do understand, I would say that it is a baseless assertion seeing that Scholasticism thrived, all that the rise of empiricism would have necessitated is scholars becoming empiricists rather than Scholastics
Every intellectual in the high middle ages was a scholastic. And the empiricism of the early modern age arose out of the intellectual tradition of the high middle ages. There was no foreign incursion of empiricist thinkers; it was a gradual process.
laminustacitus:there is no reason why Caesaro-Papism would have impeded empircism.
Isn't it curious that the Byzantine east (the study of which generated the very term "Caesaro-Papism) never made a serious general improvement in the sciences although it had the full benefit of surviving works of the Greek masters to work from for many hundreds of years before the Latin west did?
laminustacitus:One cannot underestimate the effect of the Muslim philosophers, like Alhazen, on the advent of empiricism.
Although the virtues of Aristoteleanism itself is a side note from the main question we are discussing, I would simply mention that the Golden Age of Islamic Science was highly Aristotelean itself.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap