Anthology of Ideas

In medieval societies, the most widespread result of the revival of trade and urban life was the slow decay of federalisms and its inherent lack of loyalty and the infighting it promoted. Because of the increase in the power of the kings, countrywide courts were established that allowed the spread of “real” justice rather than piecemeal justice handed out by the local Baron. Increases in trade allowed for the creation of a money economy which promoted both the urban life and trade with other countries which increased the flow of ideas into Europe.

The developments of urban towns also created a new class of people — the burgers (from the German word Burg or Fortress) — who were entirely outside the feudal system. This gave them the power to change society. The burgers gained charters from the kings which they then used to free themselves from the remaining influences of the feudal system and allowed them to govern themselves which greatly increased individual freedoms.

The Germanic tribes have been blamed for the collapse of the Roman Empire; however this is incorrect. For the most part the collapse of the Roman empire was not a collapse of an empire, but the slow integration of Germanic custom with Roman culture. This means the collapse of the Roman empire was a transfer of power from one ruling party to another. This transfer was neither peaceful nor quick, but it is the foundation of modern western society and Europe as we know it today. ((Editor’s note: This is just a sketch or an outline to introduce the topic.))

The Germanic tribes and Romans first interacted in 100 BC, and for the next 400 years there were many skirmishes with the Romans prevailing, but starting around 300 AD with the first Völkerwanderung or migration the Germans pushed hard on the Roman defenses and in many places began to merge with the existing Roman populations.

Some people search search engines by using a few keywords, but others ask entire questions. This series of posts is dedicated to them. Over the next couple weeks I’m going to pick full questions from my logs and answer them. It is the least I could do.

The first question in this series comes from an American using Windows and Internet Explorer, and they ask “What religion did the People of the Roman Empire follow?” Well I’m glad you asked that… um…let’s call you Fred… while your search landed on a very popular article entitled Causes and Effects of the Popularization of Christianity in the Roman Empire, I’m afraid that it won’t answer your question entirely.

Yes, for a portion of its history the Roman Empire was Christian, but for most of its history Rome itself (including the period of the Republic and the Empire) followed a mythopoeic religion that was closely related the classical Greek religion.

During the 18th century, scientific and social changes reshaped the concept of the self. The individual slowly separated from the collective and began to develop as an antithesis of the collective agrarian society of prior centuries; thus, giving rise to a wave of new philosophical thought that evolved into the popular movement of the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment developed around the belief that scientific thought and expression should be free from religious interference and that the foundations of society should be human reason and logic. Over time, these ideals gave rise to Romanticism which introduced the contrast of nature and the self, the internal desires, feelings and beliefs, and juxtaposed Nature with science. Franklin, Poe and Thoreau each represent one of the three popular faces of Enlightenment and Romanticism: Franklin, a well-respected Enlightenment writer, focused his writings on the improvement of the social order through improvement of the self and the realization of a deistic world; Thoreau, an Emersonian or “bright” Romantic, merged Nature with science and allowed for both to work simultaneously while emphasizing the individual’s ability to remove themselves from the flow of society; Poe, a “dark” romantic, wrote mainly on the way the individual views his world and the way the nature of the mind can recreate the world.

During the Age of Enlightenment, western society examined itself through religious texts; it found that the religious doctrines of the past lacked unchanging principles and most of them hearkened to a more mystical mindset and flew in the face of scientific thinking. For some, this demonstrated that the religious texts themselves were flawed: it was in this mindset that the concepts of deism — a religious belief that if there is a god, he is not involved in the day-to-day affairs of human lives, and any human attempts to create rules and rituals concerning this god are corrupted by human nature — were first accepted as, partially, acceptable in mainstream thought. ((It was never accepted by the majority, but in certain intellectual circles it was.)) In Thomas Paine’s Age of Reason he advocates deism because its concepts allow for religious thought and morals based on the belief in a god and afterlife while still allowing society to not be “hemmed in” by religious doctrine.

Humans who live in technologically primitive societies aren’t as intelligent as those who live in advanced societies…or so some of histories most influential personalities thought. The reasoning behind their thinking, when it was used as an honest theory and not a egocentric attack on another culture to legitimize their enslavement or destruction, is that primitive societies just harvest what is naturally provided, so while they have to physically work for their resources, there isn’t much innovation in the techniques used to collect and store it, and because there is no innovation the brain doesn’t develop all the skills that it would have if the person was forced to innovate–in short making the person less intelligent.

However, theoretically, in technologically advanced societies, which don’t provide for human needs as readily as harvesting fruits in the rainforest, an individual has to work harder to achieve their goals, so are more prone to innovate just to have the possibility of acquiring even basic things like food, and, as the assumption goes, this must make these people more intelligent and that, over time, they would be also be genetically more intelligent.