Is it true that the Dark Ages left an irrecoverable hole in history? Will we ever manage to make up for all the undone progress and lost knowledge?
>the collapse of roman civilization which caused the near extinction of european culture and caused europe to be ruled by barbarism and superstition for a thousand years wasn't a dark age
>>the collapse of roman civilization which caused the near extinction of european culture and caused europe to be ruled by barbarism and superstition for a thousand years
That's a westerner problem, hombre.
The Dark Ages existed. It's a period during which literacy decreased significantly, leaving historians in the dark (relatively to the previous period).
It is possible that if it didn't happen, science would have advanced more by now, but that's uncertain, since science, in addition to previous developments, also depends on population growth and social changes to advance.
>muh evil Christianity
Several outbreaks of the plague, a period of migration that completely changed the ethnic map of Europe, countless wars and invasion - if it wasn't for the monks, humanity wouldn't come out of the period with as much knowledge as it did.
why do people ignore that other civilizations existed at the time, india was flourishing under the Gupta dynasty and later china would too under the Tang dynasty
The conditions for serious technological progress weren't met yet anywhere across the globe, not even in the ERE
>implying the Romans every built anything as impressive as this
The Dark Ages undoubtably did a fair bit to fuck with our access to the literature of the past (and thus, also, the reliability of our perceptions of past societies.) Progress, however, is not measured solely by knowledge of the past - it is, rather, measured by what we create and learn, and there are things to build and learn in the future.
Also, there was decidedly progress during the so-called 'dark ages'. Some of it was subtle and invisible to our eyes, just as a time-traveler from 1950 might not really appreciate the difference between a 45nm dual-core CPU and a 35nm quad-core- might, even, be unimpressed, because surely a mighty electronic brain should fill a building, have several blinking lights, and shout commands at its human staff. Some of it happened in Forn Parts - 'algebra' is an Arabic word, f'rinstance, while steelworking and explosives progressed in eastasia; the Mongols invented Unicode (No, really. They wanted an alphabet that could record the languages of EVERYONE they'd conquered, so they had to invent one.).
>What's the measurement unit for "scientific advancement" anyway? Cuz that... thing is not a graph
Looking at the societies chosen, the vertical axis here is PCPP.
per capita porn production. As you can see, yes, we can recover - Modern Science at 2000 CE was at the top of the graph. Peak porn has been reached.
>West is always shit compared to East.
You'd be hard pressed to name a modern Orthodox country that doesn't suck dick.
>tfw the wealthiest and most developed orthodox country is fucking Greece
>Cathoshits barbarians on the otherhand...
Actually, the west got some really awesome guys during that time:
Occam, Duns Scotus, Thomas Bradwardine, Thomas Bradwardine, William Heytesbury, John Dumbleton, Richard Swineshead, the Merton school, etc.
These men were not only the first to truly apply mathematics to physics but also developed logarithmic functions 300 years before John Napier, and the Mean Speed Theorem 200 years before Galileo. The fact that Napier and Galileo are credited with discovering things that Medieval scholars had already developed is yet another indication of how "the Myth" has warped our perceptions of the history of science.
Similarly, the physics and astronomy of Jean Buridan and Nicholas Oresme were radical and profound, but generally unknown to the average reader. Buridan was one of the first to compare the movements of the cosmos to those of another Medieval innovation - the clock. The image of a clockwork universe which was to serve scientists well into our own era began in the Middle Ages. And Oresme's speculations about a rotating Earth shows that Medieval scholars were happy to contemplate what were (to them) fairly outlandish ideas to see if they might work - Oresme found that this particular idea actually worked quite well.
And i'm orthodox, just to be clear.
There were no scientists in the dark/middle ages, it was a contemplative exercise of Aristitotlian development towards a final state. The scientific method did not develop until the enlightenment
>There were no scientists in the dark/middle ages
It's patently false there are a lot of things that the dark ages helped us Develop carpentry for one the modern university for another, before the dark ages learning was a private thing you paid a tutor or bought one for your kids and you commitioned books from a library during the dark ages books found their way into publically acessable collections and the first lesson plans were derived from that the trivium and quadrium basically the idea that you should learn a bunch of things instead of one or two things. Also this was made more accessable by the creation of fonts with out which we would have never developed moviable type and we can thank monks for that. The "dark ages" also saw a cultural development of charity and compation as common touchstones mercy was not a weakness but a virtue. With out this idea modern siceity might not have developed.
>There were no scientists in the dark/middle ages
That's right, they preferred the term "natural philosopher". But does it really matter what they called themselves when they were developing modern math in the 1300's?
>it was a contemplative exercise of Aristitotlian development towards a final state.
The "Condemnations of 1277" attempted to assert certain things that could not be stated as "philosophically true", particularly things that put limits on divine omnipotence. This had the interesting effect of making it clear that Aristotle had, actually, got some things badly wrong - something Thomas Aquinas emphasized in his famous and highly influential Summa Theologiae:
"The condemnations and Thomas's Summa Theologiae had created a framework within which natural philosophers could safely pursue their studies. The framework .... laid down the the principle that God had decreed laws of nature but was not bound by them. Finally, it stated that Aristotle was sometimes wrong. The world was not 'eternal according to reason' and 'finite according to faith'. It was not eternal, full stop. And if Aristotle could be wrong about something that he regarded as completely certainly certain, that threw his whole philosophy into question. The way was clear for the natural philosophers of the Middle Ages to move decisively beyond the achievements of the Greeks." (Hannam, pp. 104-105)
Which is precisely what they proceeded to do. Far from being a stagnant dark age, as the first half of the Medieval Period (500-1000 AD) certainly was, the period from 1000 to 1500 AD actually saw the most impressive flowering of scientific inquiry and discovery since the time of the ancient Greeks, far eclipsing the Roman and Hellenic Eras in every respect.
With Occam and Duns Scotus taking the critical approach to Aristotle further than Aquinas' more cautious approach, the way was open for the Medieval scientists of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries to question, examine, and test the perspectives the translators of the Twelfth Century had given them, with remarkable effects
>The scientific method did not develop until the enlightenment
No. The Dark Ages simply refers to a time in history when light was scarce and very few people had access to it, mostly only noblemen had light. The term The Dark Ages does not refer to any sort of slump in the population en masse being less well educated trhan anyone else. Simply only a time of low, if any, light
This is probably bait but I just want to iron some things out. The Byzantines pretty much saved all of that stuff and then the Arabs sort of moved them west/analyzed them in a way that was accessible to European monks, mostly in Spain.
There was definately a suppression of Biblical truth.
The Papacy held absolute power. It tortured, killed and burned over 50 million Christians.
The inquisition is the most evil thing in human history.
It`s no secret that the Church amassed inordinate wealth during the Dark Ages. Their theft included confiscating property as the result of the inquisition, by selling the remission of sins (called “indulgences”), by selling ecclesiastical offices (called “simony”), and sometimes by simply taking land by force. This is well laid out in “A History of Medieval Christianity” by Russell.
>there was no scientific / technological / cultural / philosophical progress between the fall of Western Rome and the renaissance
Jokes aside, there are actually retards out there who believe this.
>le catholics are true christians maymay
Yes because Christ told us to invent horrible torture machines and burn people at the stakes.
Because Christ told us to celebrate pagan holidays, traditions and worship Mary.
The actual real Christians were being slaughtered by this Babylonian cult we call the "Roman Catholic church.
Honestly why don't more people understand this? The Mary worship (or "veneration" if you're an Asperger) only came about with hellenization of Christianity and syncretization with European paganism. The early Christians in Jerusalem had no such thing.
>implying any of that had to do with theology and wasn't because of temporal power politics
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Even something like burning at the stake wasn't universally applied. As horrible as the Inquisition was, just as an example, it generally took a lot to actually get to the stage where you were burned alive. You could also repent on the pyre, and they'd just strangle you before burning you. And that was only if you didn't repent in the first place or after torture. What all that means is that it as likely mostly the mentally ill having delusions and such that were burned.
I'm a born-raised totally lapsed Catholic and don't want to make apologetics, but c'mon.
"Real Christians" is a slippery slope. Jesus also never said "record my words and then follow them exactly literally for the next thousands of years".
Catholics worship the sun god Baal or Horus.
Catholicism is a Satanic counterfeit cult meant to undermine true Biblical Christianity.
Thank God for the Reformation, and all the martyrs who died in order to preserve scripture.
Nothing would change drastically if Western Rome didn't fall.
The intellectual center of the Roman Empire was in the East. The best Roman Philosopher was a guy that lived where today is Turkey, for example. And the Byzantine Empire only fell much later.
The Chinese were as advanced, if not more so than Rome, as well.
This is actually Kind of true
The Eastern Europe was more advanced than Western Europe Even during Roman times
The Romans Dominated the Greeks Mainly due to being more Militaristic but even then The Greek/Egyptian/Syrian part of the Empire was more Urban and Advanced than the more Rural Western Part
The Roman Empire adopted Christianity in 312AD, Christian emperors persecuted all other faiths and tried to force everyone to be Christian under pain of death.
Literature written by pagans was burnt and destroyed which resulted in many works of literature, mathematics, philosophy, engineering being lost, and destroyed centuries of accumulated learning.
>Christian emperors persecuted all other faiths and tried to force everyone to be Christian under pain of death.
>Far from being a stagnant dark age, as the first half of the Medieval Period (500-1000 AD) certainly was, the period from 1000 to 1500 AD actually saw the most impressive flowering of scientific inquiry and discovery since the time of the ancient Greeks, far eclipsing the Roman and Hellenic Eras in every respect.
Why is it so difficult for people to admit that medieval Christian civilization was far less glorious than the Greco-Roman Civilization it replaced?
I always thought the western European 'dark ages' just meant the period between the fall of the Roman Empire and the high Medieval period, is this wrong? Do most people understand it as applying to the entire Middle Ages?
Meticulous records were kept concerning every case tried during the 400 year long Inquisition, only 3,000 people were executed by inquisitorial courts over that period. Please go to the libraries of Toledo and Salamanca if you want to see the hard proof of this.
Does anyone have the version of this that goes back and has a projection for "No Fire vs Fire", stating that the invention of fire was the true dark age of mankind?
That one made me heartily kek.
here is a little bigger.
srly, beliving the dark ages existed and killed the scientific advance is edgy-12-yo tier
If there was such a thing as the "Dark Ages", how come metalwork from that time period far surpassed anything that was around before?
What do you mean irrecoverable? Do you think there's anything we have not rediscovered that we have supposedly discovered but was lost in antique times? Additionall, technology and science was advancing steadily following the fall of the Roman Empire. Europe in 1000 AD was WAY beyond Rome. It might seem less 'civilized', but feudal Europe was definetly more 'advanced'. What was temporarily lost by the fall of Rome was mostly on the part of humanities. Things don't happen by chance. If a system turns out to stay around for a good 1000 years, we could assume it does so because it keeps prevailing against the alternatives.
>Is it true that the Dark Ages left an irrecoverable hole in history?
Yes, there's a hole in the sources because texts weren't written as much and didn't survive.
This hole has nothing to do with your ridiculous ideas of "progress."
>No one outside of Europe ever did science, especially not the Muslim scholars that preserved Greek texts
>the collapse of roman civilization which caused the near extinction of european culture
Yeah bro, Rome collapsing totally endangered the existence of Germanic, Slavic and Celtic Cultures. And the emergence of distinct Romance Language was...endangered...by Rome falling?