Civilization

[EusebioScrib]

This is a recent discussion we had in the RAAN talk thread in Chit-Chat.

What is civilization?

I see civilization as humanity organized in some way shape or form.

Here's what the wiki article says, although I'm iffy about it because it implies "complex" society, which is characterized by a state. There is also a lot of discussion (further in the article) about heirarchy etc, however they don't think a technological egalitarian society is possible.

We need to create our own definitions of things. I'm in support of civilization meaning "humanity organized in some way, shape, or form."

Thoughts



Literal and technical definitions

By the most minimal, literal definition, a civilization is a complex society. Technically, anthropologists distinguish civilizations in which many of the people live in cities and get their food from agriculture, from band and tribal societies in which people live in small settlements or nomadic groups and subsist by foraging, hunting, or working small horticultural gardens. When used in this sense, civilization is an exclusive term, applied to some human groups and not others.

Broader sense

In a broader sense, civilization often can refer to any distinct society, whether complex and city dwelling, or simple and tribal. This sense is often perceived as less exclusive and ethnocentric, or alternatively less useful and meaningful, than the first. In this sense, civilization is nearly synonymous with culture.

Human society as a whole

"Civilization" can sometimes refer to human society as a whole, as in "A nuclear war would wipe out Civilization" (see End of civilization) or "I'm glad to be safely back in Civilization after being lost in the wilderness for 3 weeks". Additionally, it is used in

A standard of behavior

Civilization can also mean the standard of behavior, similar to etiquette. "Civilized" behavior is contrasted with "barbaric" or crude behavior. In this sense, civilization implies sophistication and refinement.

[EusebioScrib]

This is a recent discussion we had in the RAAN talk thread in Chit-Chat.

What is civilization?

I see civilization as humanity organized in some way shape or form.

Here's what the wiki article says, although I'm iffy about it because it implies "complex" society, which is characterized by a state. There is also a lot of discussion (further in the article) about heirarchy etc, however they don't think a technological egalitarian society is possible.

We need to create our own definitions of things. I'm in support of civilization meaning "humanity organized in some way, shape, or form."

Thoughts



Literal and technical definitions

By the most minimal, literal definition, a civilization is a complex society. Technically, anthropologists distinguish civilizations in which many of the people live in cities and get their food from agriculture, from band and tribal societies in which people live in small settlements or nomadic groups and subsist by foraging, hunting, or working small horticultural gardens. When used in this sense, civilization is an exclusive term, applied to some human groups and not others.

Broader sense

In a broader sense, civilization often can refer to any distinct society, whether complex and city dwelling, or simple and tribal. This sense is often perceived as less exclusive and ethnocentric, or alternatively less useful and meaningful, than the first. In this sense, civilization is nearly synonymous with culture.

Human society as a whole

"Civilization" can sometimes refer to human society as a whole, as in "A nuclear war would wipe out Civilization" (see End of civilization) or "I'm glad to be safely back in Civilization after being lost in the wilderness for 3 weeks". Additionally, it is used in

A standard of behavior

Civilization can also mean the standard of behavior, similar to etiquette. "Civilized" behavior is contrasted with "barbaric" or crude behavior. In this sense, civilization implies sophistication and refinement.

[EusebioScrib]

This is a recent discussion we had in the RAAN talk thread in Chit-Chat.

What is civilization?

I see civilization as humanity organized in some way shape or form.

Here's what the wiki article says, although I'm iffy about it because it implies "complex" society, which is characterized by a state. There is also a lot of discussion (further in the article) about heirarchy etc, however they don't think a technological egalitarian society is possible.

We need to create our own definitions of things. I'm in support of civilization meaning "humanity organized in some way, shape, or form."

Thoughts



Literal and technical definitions

By the most minimal, literal definition, a civilization is a complex society. Technically, anthropologists distinguish civilizations in which many of the people live in cities and get their food from agriculture, from band and tribal societies in which people live in small settlements or nomadic groups and subsist by foraging, hunting, or working small horticultural gardens. When used in this sense, civilization is an exclusive term, applied to some human groups and not others.

Broader sense

In a broader sense, civilization often can refer to any distinct society, whether complex and city dwelling, or simple and tribal. This sense is often perceived as less exclusive and ethnocentric, or alternatively less useful and meaningful, than the first. In this sense, civilization is nearly synonymous with culture.

Human society as a whole

"Civilization" can sometimes refer to human society as a whole, as in "A nuclear war would wipe out Civilization" (see End of civilization) or "I'm glad to be safely back in Civilization after being lost in the wilderness for 3 weeks". Additionally, it is used in

A standard of behavior

Civilization can also mean the standard of behavior, similar to etiquette. "Civilized" behavior is contrasted with "barbaric" or crude behavior. In this sense, civilization implies sophistication and refinement.

[Free Left]

I always thought that civilization was a combination of culture, organized society and a degree of consciousness in various forms.
I don't think that civilizatrion has to be complex, I mean they say civilization started about 4000 or 5000 (?) years ago, and those civilizations were not complex at all.

[Free Left]

I always thought that civilization was a combination of culture, organized society and a degree of consciousness in various forms.
I don't think that civilizatrion has to be complex, I mean they say civilization started about 4000 or 5000 (?) years ago, and those civilizations were not complex at all.

[Free Left]

I always thought that civilization was a combination of culture, organized society and a degree of consciousness in various forms.
I don't think that civilizatrion has to be complex, I mean they say civilization started about 4000 or 5000 (?) years ago, and those civilizations were not complex at all.

[Janus]

A complex organization of humans who are guided by similar ideas, etc.

The Latin word "civilis" is the adjective form of civis or citizen.

[Janus]

A complex organization of humans who are guided by similar ideas, etc.

The Latin word "civilis" is the adjective form of civis or citizen.

[Janus]

A complex organization of humans who are guided by similar ideas, etc.

The Latin word "civilis" is the adjective form of civis or citizen.

[chimx]

since this board censors the other half of the people that would be interested in this topic, maybe you should move it to OI.

[chimx]

since this board censors the other half of the people that would be interested in this topic, maybe you should move it to OI.

[chimx]

since this board censors the other half of the people that would be interested in this topic, maybe you should move it to OI.

[Janus]

It doesn't really belong in Theory but I don't see why it would belong in OI.

[Janus]

It doesn't really belong in Theory but I don't see why it would belong in OI.

[Janus]

It doesn't really belong in Theory but I don't see why it would belong in OI.

[Rawthentic]

I also believe that the word "civilization" is used by people to describe what they see as normal in their lives. For example, I have met ignorant people who have visited Mexico and commented on the indigenous peoples and how they are not "civilized" and that they just wanted to get back to "civilization". Get my point?

[Rawthentic]

I also believe that the word "civilization" is used by people to describe what they see as normal in their lives. For example, I have met ignorant people who have visited Mexico and commented on the indigenous peoples and how they are not "civilized" and that they just wanted to get back to "civilization". Get my point?

[Rawthentic]

I also believe that the word "civilization" is used by people to describe what they see as normal in their lives. For example, I have met ignorant people who have visited Mexico and commented on the indigenous peoples and how they are not "civilized" and that they just wanted to get back to "civilization". Get my point?

[chimx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 01:00 AM
It doesn't really belong in Theory but I don't see why it would belong in OI.
because anti-civ and primitivists are censored on this board and can't participate here, and this thread came out of an anti-civ discussion.

[chimx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 01:00 AM
It doesn't really belong in Theory but I don't see why it would belong in OI.
because anti-civ and primitivists are censored on this board and can't participate here, and this thread came out of an anti-civ discussion.

[chimx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 01:00 AM
It doesn't really belong in Theory but I don't see why it would belong in OI.
because anti-civ and primitivists are censored on this board and can't participate here, and this thread came out of an anti-civ discussion.

[apathy maybe]

The first dicitionary definition says this

An advanced state of intellectual, cultural, and material development in human society, marked by progress in the arts and sciences, the extensive use of record-keeping, including writing, and the appearance of complex political and social institutions.I would not really disagree with this, except perhaps the last bit about complex political and social insitutions.

Civilisation is hopefully rational, but there could be "civilisations" that are not rational. And remember what Ghandi said about Western civilisation, "It would be a good idea".

[apathy maybe]

The first dicitionary definition says this

An advanced state of intellectual, cultural, and material development in human society, marked by progress in the arts and sciences, the extensive use of record-keeping, including writing, and the appearance of complex political and social institutions.I would not really disagree with this, except perhaps the last bit about complex political and social insitutions.

Civilisation is hopefully rational, but there could be "civilisations" that are not rational. And remember what Ghandi said about Western civilisation, "It would be a good idea".

[apathy maybe]

The first dicitionary definition says this

An advanced state of intellectual, cultural, and material development in human society, marked by progress in the arts and sciences, the extensive use of record-keeping, including writing, and the appearance of complex political and social institutions.I would not really disagree with this, except perhaps the last bit about complex political and social insitutions.

Civilisation is hopefully rational, but there could be "civilisations" that are not rational. And remember what Ghandi said about Western civilisation, "It would be a good idea".

[EusebioScrib]

Its seems the general consenus is that civilization is not simply "class society." Atleast in this thread. The wiki definitions, I believe, back me up.

The use of anti-civ is primitivst. They are opposed to civlization because of technology, not because of classes.

Like Nachie said, it's semantics, however you are using the wrong ones. Using anti-civlization implies to other people you are opposed to some form of organized humanity and of technology, which indicates your alliance with primmies, something I wouldn't celebrate.

(I don't think this should be in OI, I think it is a theoretical question, but I'd like chimix to be able to contribute so I say please move it to OI)

[Nachie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 05:58 AM
but I'd like chimix to be able to contribute so I say please move it to OI)
No worries, he's been unrestricted

[EusebioScrib]

No worries, he's been unrestricted

Yay :P

http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/3825/nachie4eb.png

:rolleyes:

[Nachie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 06:13 AM
http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/3825/nachie4eb.png
I'll user posted your image! :ph34r:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

What the fuck is up with all the anti-civilisation and anti-technology sentiment recently? Whatever happened to class analysis?

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 02:14 AM
What the fuck is up with all the anti-civilisation and anti-technology sentiment recently? Whatever happened to class analysis?
The two aren't neccessarily mutually exclusive.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by black banner black gun+Jun 25 2006, 09:23 AM--> (black banner black gun @ Jun 25 2006, 09:23 AM)
[email protected] 25 2006, 02:14 AM
What the fuck is up with all the anti-civilisation and anti-technology sentiment recently? Whatever happened to class analysis?
The two aren't neccessarily mutually exclusive. [/b]
Yes, but an anti-technology or civilisation based analysis renders a class analysis rather superfluous does it not?

[Ol' Dirty]

Civilization- A society of sentient individuals united by common culture.

Basicay it's a sentient society.

[Nachie]

I hear y'all, but just like 100 other words that have been coined or co-opted by various ideologies, "civilization" is not the same for the anti-civs as it is for Merriam Webster.

!

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 01:39 PM
Civilization- A society of sentient individuals united by common culture.

Basicay it's a sentient society.
No, under this definition gatherer-hunters would be "civilized."


Yes, but an anti-technology or civilisation based analysis renders a class analysis rather superfluous does it not?

It really all depends on what we're talking about. Social classes can exist outside of modern technology, and civilization can be defined a number of ways (as class society, for example), so one can have an analysis that works all of this in. I think Bonanno has done a decent job of synthesizing these viewpoints.

[Ol' Dirty]

I see no problem with that.

Thry are, in a way. They are sentient, they communicate, and they have a culture of their own. They go by all criterea that must be met to be civilized. Native americans were a civilized cociety, right? Early African tribes? Ancient Anglo-Saxon tribes?

[Faceless]

Here's what the wiki article says, although I'm iffy about it because it implies "complex" society, which is characterized by a state. There is also a lot of discussion (further in the article) about heirarchy etc, however they don't think a technological egalitarian society is possible.

To marxists the term implies human society since slave society - class society. The wiki definition of civilisation being characterised by a state isn't contradictory with a marxist analysis of the state since the state is a mechanism by which the ruling class maintains its rule over the other classes and as such the state did not exist before class society.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

I don't think that civilizatrion has to be complex, I mean they say civilization started about 4000 or 5000 (?) years ago, and those civilizations were not complex at all.

There were, if I recall correctly, "civilizations" (if you would stretch it that far) in Europe at the height of the ice age (which really show us that they were to an extent quite advanced technologically for the time).

The site of Dolni Vestonice overlooking the Dyje river in Moravia was a regular campsite for about 100-120 people and dates to about 25,000 years ago. They burnt clay figures, and are the earliest fired clay objects in the world by at least 15,000 years. They also had human burials.

Furhter east are the two spectacular sites of Kostenki near the river Don and Mezhirich overlooking the Dnieper vlaly south-east of Kiev. Both date to the height of the last ice age between 22,000 and 18,000 years ago. The former was in very hostile conditions only some 430 miles south of the massive continental ice-sheet. The main hut at Kostenski covered an area of 420 square feet, the five at Mezhirich were each up to 22 feet across enclosing an area twice of that of Kostenski.
All were built with foundation walls of mammoth bones which supported a framework of smaller limb bones and vertebrae in a fine 'herring bone' pattern that held up the roof.

All had regularly spaced hearths, work areas and deep storage pits in the permafrost to hold meat. The conditions at Kostenski were so harsh that there were underground dwellings (!).


This info has been taken mostly from the book World History: A New Perspective, by Clive Pointing.

[pandora]

Let's get one thing straight the right wing has a distinct perception of the word civilized ls linked to development. this relates back to the idea of the Masonic Lodge who borrowed it from the Egyptians supposedly, but really the Greeks and is destroying our planet. Building for the sake of building to not be an animal.

I recently met with a right wing Bush appointee to the UN (Goli Ameri) and she repeatedly referred to "third world" nations as uncivilized.
This is of course incorrect, she is from Iran or Persia so one would think she would be more aware, but is not.

In my travels I have realized that hyper-developed economies are actually less civil in that they have more isolation and less civil or organized society in that the members meet less often for decision making.

What the perception above in the definition is also invalid as it constitutes civilization also in terms of development, mostly in terms of agricultural development and gives but a passing favor to nomadic societies which often have complex societies with many rules and regulations to membership that in would refer back to the idea of civilization as organization perhaps of rules and regulations.

This takes us to the next breadth which is civil as a form of behavior, I would say this is the deeper reality of the truth of the word "civilization" civil refers to one who obeys the constructs of society in such a way as to be malable.

Henceforth "uncivilized" socities such as Genghis Khan and Atila the Hun were able to run rampant over such "civilized' societies who thought they couldn't because they well they're uncivilized they just can't that's all.

Which gets to the deeper structure, our society, most Western socities and former colonies thereof, are based on rules and regulations of that supposed "Great Society" of the Masons. The Masonic lodge bases the notion of civilization on the ability to build well this notion is completely destroying our planet today. Like ants we tear down and build on every mountain top to prove that we are superior to animals, and therefore civilized.

The basis of the Masons really goes back to Egyptian society which they worship, perhaps if they had Jewish ancestry that would remember that the Egyptians were not egaliatians but vicious slave owners.

Regardless, the real eye of civiliation for Masons is the Greeks. The Greeks were more civilized than the Persians because of a building built with nice dimensions, the Parthenon, which proved they were superior.

The fact that Persepholis had many monuments that riviled the Parthenon required that the Greeks under Alexander the Great, burn it down to prove that they were the more civilized! :D

But I digress, the true mark of who is more civilized than whom, is who is the winner when! :P