I think he means that is what he thinks of you. *your're so thick, blah, blah, blah*

The Greeks did not have a government until Alexander's dad, who was no democrat.

That's how the polis ticked.

You're way more knowledgeable about ancient Greece than I am.

The Greeks did not have a government until Alexander's dad, who was no democrat.

That's how the polis ticked. — Banno

I don't understand any of those words you just used.

:yawn:

I think I might have to add science as a pillar then.

Edit: but maybe science is an offshoot if poetry. From where and how did the idea to make stone tools originally spring from?

Edit: ignore my last comment. Obviously it’s the actions of memory, observation, etc.

(Delete)

Edit: but maybe science is an offshoot if poetry. From where and how did the idea to make stone tools originally spring from?

Edit: ignore my last comment. Obviously it’s the actions of memory, observation, etc — Brett

Its an interesting question where science originated. I think a lot of creativity goes into science, and I wouldn't rule out poetry as an influence.

This is the lady who's folk made that tool:

Perhaps she was a poet, too.

Do you think politics, as I define it, was part of her life. Tools can’t have been made in isolation. Even if she was part of only a family I still see politics as part of that dynamic.

Edit: if they’re making tools then they’ve entered a complex state.

Do you think politics, as I define it, was part of her life. Tools can’t have been made in isolation. Even if she was part of only a family I still see politics as part of that dynamic.

Edit: if they’re making tools then they’ve entered a complex state. — Brett

I'll answer that. Stone tools could have been made in isolation. It's only when they start sharing and passing down their knowledge, do politics get involved. Or it could have been a peaceful and pleasant act of cooperation. No one knows until they start researching hominids.

For my own interests, in an effort to try and put modern times into perspective, to put together some framework for looking at things, I’ve tried to break humanity up into manageable sections, to then see where they might crossover, how they’re influenced, or to see if I missed something, or if my four pillars are an accurate way to break it up. — Brett

Have your read 'Sapiens' by Yuval Noah Harari?

Harari surveys the history of humankind in the Stone Age up to the twenty-first century, focusing on Homo sapiens. He divides the history of Sapiens into four major parts:

1. The Cognitive Revolution (c. 70,000 BCE, when Sapiens evolved imagination).
2.The Agricultural Revolution (c. 10,000 BCE, the development of agriculture).
3. The unification of humankind (the gradual consolidation of human political organisations towards one global empire).
4. The Scientific Revolution (c. 1500 CE, the emergence of objective science). — Yuval Noah Harari

^ which seems fairly aligned with your question. The book chronicles the evolution of these in accessible detail and links the pillar idea to evidence-based anthropology. Each event can be consolidated to re-word as a cornerstone, for example 1 can be phrased as Art or Imagination (which covers poetry), 2 as Agriculture (which is foundational to political/economic systems), 3 as Politics, and 4 as Science.

Religion's genesis isn't much to do with poetry, but Art played a role in its expression. The precursor was more likely hunter-gatherer pattern recognition, which gave a survival advantage over other species. The faculty, which evolved into a genetic propensity, caused false inferences to be made when human events coincided with unexplainable phenomena, an obvious example being tribal rain dances. If a tribe was experiencing a drought and rain coincidentally came immediately after some kind of ceremony, it was assumed causal. The tendency also encouraged other influential phenomena--like the sun--to be understood metaphysically, eventually with agency--which agency was the precursor to god worship.

Christianity is exactly the same, except it's more complex owing to expanding knowledge hierarchies and the increasing complexity of human civilisation.

Oldowan tools are found from France to China.

The precursor was more likely hunter-gatherer pattern recognition, which gave a survival advantage over other species. The faculty, which evolved into a genetic propensity, caused false inferences to be made when human events coincided with unexplainable phenomena, an obvious example being tribal rain dances. — dex

That’s interesting. Thanks for the post.

Would you go along with the idea that humans are inherently political creatures? And that the political class, and the institutions, took ownership of it.

Oldowan tools are found from France to China. — Banno

Therefore what?

Hence they shared. With all that implies.

Wasn't sure because it seems like they could have been made independently in different parts of the world.

Inherently as in based in genetics? Like, would an island nation of 10 aborigines without knowledge of mass societies start engaging in machiavellianism?

I'd say we're inherently communal: as tribes grew to 150 members certain governences were needed for goal unification; one leader governing group morality became a hierarchy of leaders governing doctrines. 'Politics' is the advanced, large-population expression of the same thing. So ownership was more an organic thing than a takeover.

The precursor was more likely hunter-gatherer pattern recognition, — dex

It occurs to me that it’s similar to tool making but it led to something like false inferences that throws it back into poetry.

Napping requires considerable dexterity; there is more to it than banging rocks together. The conchoidal fractures on the example pictured are the result of selection of the material and careful striking to produce a useable edge. This type of tool was used for more than a million years, so the technique was passed to subsequent generations.

Inherently as in a basis in genetics? Like, would an island nation of 10 aborigines without knowledge of mass societies start engaging in machiavellianism? — dex

Maybe not Machiavellianism but most likely subjective awareness that leads to individualism, that leads to perceptions of difference, which leads to a dynamic on the island which I would call politics. Before that it was all instinct, basic survival skills.

Is that genetic? I don’t know how we could know.

It occurs to me that it’s similar to tool making but it led to something like false inferences that throws it back into poetry. — Brett

Not sure I follow but it might be said that Art has a basis in the pattern trait, whereby it led to creativity with abstractions.

What I was getting at is that the “hunter-gatherer pattern recognition, which gave a survival advantage over other species” is similar to the process, I imagine, in creating tools: memory, recognition of things being repeated, etc. Very concrete acts and results. And then it’s transferred into observation of weather, the sun, etc. and given spiritual meaning or understanding, which is then acted on through rituals, chants, carvings, prayer or dance; back to poetry.

Napping requires considerable dexterity; there is more to it than banging rocks together. The conchoidal fractures on the example pictured are the result of selection of the material and careful striking to produce a useable edge. This type of tool was used for more than a million years, so the technique was passed to subsequent generations. — Banno

Thats really interesting. If only @Brett put the same amount of thought and effort into his OP as our ancestors put into making tools, perhaps we would all make more progress. :wink:

Is that genetic? — Brett

Yep

It's not wrong usage to call them political but it's not well appropriated in my opinion. Politics in developed populations is advanced enough to constitute something different--maybe governance is a better bridging term--but power struggles and social structuring are inherent.

Would you refer to chimpanzees as political? Their tribes are organised much the same as our ancestors were, but we term them communal rather than political.

I was thinking about how humanity seems to keep on behaving in the same way throughout history. So I wanted to try and prioritise those things that drive us that way. And if those four pillars, as I call them, are the basic superstructure to our lives. — Brett

Well, I'm with @Banno in this: no arbitrary list of "pillars" is compelling; categorical extrapolations from anthropological 'data' are pseudo (as per e.g. Hume's guillotine, Lukács' hypostatization, etc).

no arbitrary list of "pillars" is compelling — 180 Proof

Why arbitrary and what would you add or delete?

Would you refer to chimpanzees as political? — dex

Yes I think I would. Communal is such a nice word, it sounds idyllic, everything in its place, everyone fitting in. I don’t think I would choose that over political. I know I’m appropriating the word, but even if I think about Chimpanzees I see it as a political body with all the friction and jockeying of humanity. I think communal is fine to a point, but after that what? The violence, the challenging, the posturing, the killing, the underlying tensions; that’s political to me.

You can't divorce the word 'politic' from its original Greek meaning because politics is a Greek word.
— Wheatley

I’m using politics as a form of interaction between people. “The affairs of the city” are the affairs of the people. First the people then the institutions.
5 hours ago — Brett

Some broader ideas on politics:

“ Agonism argues that politics essentially comes down to conflict between conflicting interests. Political scientist Elmer Schattschneider argued that "at the root of all politics is the universal language of conflict",[27] while for Carl Schmitt the essence of politics is the distinction of 'friend' from foe'.[28] This is in direct contrast to the more co-operative views of politics by Aristotle and Crick. However, a more mixed view between these extremes is provided by the Irish author Michael Laver, who noted that "Politics is about the characteristic blend of conflict and co-operation that can be found so often in human interactions. Pure conflict is war. Pure co-operation is true love. Politics is a mixture of both." Wikipedia.

Looks inherently conservative. — Banno

Just had a sudden late thought. Why conservative?

Because there is no mention of change.

No improvement, no becoming... things that are central to humanity.