Badmouthing the Middle Ages
- Thread starter ceo_esq
- Start date
-
- Tags
- badmouthing middle
Art Vandelay
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 8, 2004
- Messages
- 4,787
That's a rather odd comparison to make, since "Renaissance" comes from the Latin for "rebirth".
Good point. In addition, medieval Europe witnessed at least one and arguably two other "rebirths" prior to the 15th century: first and foremost, the great intellectual flowering known as the Twelfth-century Renaissance and, earlier, the Carolingian Renaissance.
Kopji
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2003
- Messages
- 8,004
ceo_esq & art vandelay
Sorry I'm missing the point of both your points, I must be more dense today than usual.
I am aware Renaissance means "Rebirth"; to my thinking it seems to convey a common understanding in the course of history that something was dead or asleep preceding it.
Sorry I'm missing the point of both your points, I must be more dense today than usual.
I am aware Renaissance means "Rebirth"; to my thinking it seems to convey a common understanding in the course of history that something was dead or asleep preceding it.
I think all Art was saying there - and I speak subject to his correction - is that it is appropriate to use Renaissance to designate something perceived as a rebirth for the simple and compelling reason that the word itself means "rebirth". On the other hand, the somewhat more neutral etymology of medieval refers simply to an era situated between two other eras - on its face, it doesn't signify a lack of enlightenment. So Art, I infer, was objecting to the suggestion that we use medieval to mean unenlightened "just as" (i.e. on a similar basis as) we use Renaissance to mean a rebirth.
Hmmmmmmmm.
Generally, the medieval period was from about 600 to about 1000/1200. It was about 600 when the first strains of feudalism were first developed, and at about 1100-1200 was when gunpowder enjoyed its first effective uses in warfare. This signalled the end of the knight as a militarily effective unit. (Actually, this happened a little earlier, around the Battle of Leeds, but traditions are hard to kill.)
The dark ages were about 400-600, or so.
I think Randi was using the term figuratively, as a giant leap BACKWARDS in the understanding of science and technology.
Not literally.
Generally, the medieval period was from about 600 to about 1000/1200. It was about 600 when the first strains of feudalism were first developed, and at about 1100-1200 was when gunpowder enjoyed its first effective uses in warfare. This signalled the end of the knight as a militarily effective unit. (Actually, this happened a little earlier, around the Battle of Leeds, but traditions are hard to kill.)
The dark ages were about 400-600, or so.
I think Randi was using the term figuratively, as a giant leap BACKWARDS in the understanding of science and technology.
Not literally.
AnotherSillyAlias
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2005
- Messages
- 1,522
The phrase the Dark Ages (or Dark Age) is most commonly known in relation to the European Early Middle Ages (from about A.D. 476 to about 1000)
From the Wikipedia.
From the Wikipedia.
What would you call the period between 1000/1200 and, say, 1400/1500?
If you go and geta telescope and look up really fast, you might see my point flying over your heads...
And that point was: Randi is using this term figuratively, not literally.
What he appears to be saying is that he thinks that such actions are apt to take our understanding of science, the universe, and everything back 1000 years. Which lands us dab smack into 1006, the dark/middle ages by anyone's standards.
I doubt he was implying anything historical.
And that point was: Randi is using this term figuratively, not literally.
What he appears to be saying is that he thinks that such actions are apt to take our understanding of science, the universe, and everything back 1000 years. Which lands us dab smack into 1006, the dark/middle ages by anyone's standards.
I doubt he was implying anything historical.
Kopji
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2003
- Messages
- 8,004
Ahhh, ok I see that now. Yup that was stupid.
I think of the two words as having been integrated into modern language in a similar manner, maybe one is more faithful to its roots than the other. I use renaissance and happen to know it means 'rebirth' without thinking of the Latin etymology. It is also a period in history, though not precisely described.
Medieval's meaning has also become abstract over time. It can be used as an adjective that describes a time we view as antiquated, but that derives that meaning from an actual historic period.
If we say a culture underwent a renaissance, that's similar to how we use medieval.
To the topic, it simply seems like Randi is using the phrase 'middle ages' in the same abstracted but common way 'medieval' has come to be used:
Maybe 'stupid lite' today, I'm not sure that was any better...
Last edited:
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
Mid and Late Medieval periods.
Just getting back to some of you.
Yet many past eras have been characterized by brutality and superstition. I might be hard pressed to argue that the 14th century was any more bedeviled by brutality and superstition than, say, the 20th century.
If polls are anything to go by, in 2006, the worldview of the majority of people is significantly influenced by superstition and/or faith. It's even possible that superstition has made a comeback since the days of the great medieval rationalists.
If Randi thought something would set our understanding back 250 years, would he be apt to say "This takes us back to the Enlightenment"? If he thought it would set us back 350 years, would he say "This takes us back to the Age of Reason"? Would a 450-year regression inspire him to evoke the Renaissance?
No, whether it's 200 years or 2,000 years, it always seems to be the Middle Ages that get the bum rap.
Darat said:
Yet many past eras have been characterized by brutality and superstition. I might be hard pressed to argue that the 14th century was any more bedeviled by brutality and superstition than, say, the 20th century.
If polls are anything to go by, in 2006, the worldview of the majority of people is significantly influenced by superstition and/or faith. It's even possible that superstition has made a comeback since the days of the great medieval rationalists.
If Randi thought something would set our understanding back 250 years, would he be apt to say "This takes us back to the Enlightenment"? If he thought it would set us back 350 years, would he say "This takes us back to the Age of Reason"? Would a 450-year regression inspire him to evoke the Renaissance?
No, whether it's 200 years or 2,000 years, it always seems to be the Middle Ages that get the bum rap.
Art Vandelay
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 8, 2004
- Messages
- 4,787
Pretty much. More precisely, both "The Renaissaince" and general use of the term "renaissance" reference the Latin meaning, while general use of "medieval" references "The Medieval Period". I guess this is a common phenomenon with words: they become associated with a certain instance, so that other uses are seen as references to that particular use. Other examples would be "comrade", "apartheid", and "Pilgrim".
Of course, it doesn't help that it's generally pronounced "ren-a-sance" rather than "reh-neh-sance", which would empasize its connection to similar words like "nascent" or "nativity".
I struggled to find a succinct phrase that separated beliefs in religion to a worldview dominated by superstition - looks like I failed.
By saying "defined the world view of the majority of the people" I meant that people (in the societies and cultures that can be linked to a phrase like "middle ages" which is of course a very Eurocentric term) no longer believe the world works by magic in the same way or degree. People on the whole do not believe that the crops grow because of the prayers, farmers today understand the underlying principles of why you need to crop rotate (e.g. what actually is exhausted/concentrated in a field), people don't believe that imps and demons are causing illness in their family, they understand that the forces such as electricity are generated by human beings and so on.
Also I think it is especially an excellent age if you want to point out that a specific treatment is nothing more then sympathetic magic that belongs to a long ago time e.g. to a time when superstition underlaid the thinking about treatment of disease and illness. It is very apt to mention that something like homeopathy (despite only being 200 years old) is in fact a throwback to the typical "dark ages/middle ages/medieval" mindset about treating disease and illness.
Could a slightly different era be used as comparison? Undoubtedly, but that is always the case. If I wanted a comparison to say genocide do I use something my readers will have at least a vague idea about or pick an obscure reference that will perhaps only be recognised by 1 out of 25 of my intended audience? His point was not about the middle ages but about a specific so-called alternative medicine that does not belong in this day and age (because we know its fundamental theory and so called action is not correct).
epepke
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2003
- Messages
- 9,264
We can talk until the cows come home about whether the Middle Ages or the Dark Ages or whatever are meaningful concepts, or whether they deserve their reputation.
It's all kind of missing the point, though, because the medicine of that time certainly does deserve its reputation.
It's all kind of missing the point, though, because the medicine of that time certainly does deserve its reputation.
And ... what do you mean exactly? The reputation that medieval science enjoys among average people (poor)? The reputation medieval science enjoys among contemporary historians of early science (rather good)? The reputation medieval art enjoys among tourists (probably mixed)?
The Odd Emperor
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2004
- Messages
- 252
Interesting view. Unfortunately you may be off base just slightly. Almost no progress, military, technical or social was enjoyed in the so called Middle Ages (from around 400 AD until around the mid 16th century.) Nearly every “advancement” during this period was due to rediscoveries of old writings from the earlier classical civilizations.
BTW, the horse collar was developed by the Chinese around 100 BC.
That is flat-out false. This is what I'm talking about when I speak of the widespread but utterly groundless misconception that the Middle Ages were a period of unrelieved intellectual and social stagnation.
I'd really like to know your sources for the claim you've made above. But before you respond, I strongly encourage you to check out this post and this one, both of which contain substantial citations to contemporary scholarship directly contradicting what you've written.
epepke
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2003
- Messages
- 9,264
Most of that stuff is right, but the art was actually quite good. It wasn't technologically advanced, but a lot of the emotional expression was excellent. A lot of the paintings were stylistic and flat, but then again, so was Sin City.