Stabbing for GTA4

[DinoDoc]

I refuse to read through the entire thread but does anyone else find this an oddly content appropiate way to get the game?

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Aeson
You don't have to agree with me at all costs. The cost to you by disagreeing on this point is how I (or anyone following, if anyone is, which is unlikely) will view you for your stance.

Works both ways, no? Just that I'm rather bored by the "if you think x then you're y, while I'm always >>> y" games. If you want to feel superior, go ahead, it's quite amusing.

Because I don't need some 2000 yo dead people to tell me how to determine whether an act is self-indulgent or not. When making my own judgments of an action, I really don't care what they thought about it. What they did is what they did. I can label it as I see fit.

Ignorance at work. The actor's perspective is an important part of historical research, and since you posted that the "gain is to learn from history" I'm wondering what we're learning when we just take the parts of history that could allow for a certain judgement and ignore others that could possibly stand against it.

Though you don't seem comfortable with the feedback your labeling has bought you.

Thx for your concern, but the more I read from you, the less I care.

That's your criteria for judging, and it's "modern". Your whole stance is hypocritical because what you decry, you're doing yourself.

I see, saying we shouldn't judge Rome in a certain way = judging Rome. Yes, it's a modern view, but one that clearly calls against making an explicit judgement about Rome in this way. If you disagree, you're hopeless.

The gain is to learn from history. To understand why things happen. Not to obfuscate lessons to be learned by pretending that you can't look back and judge what happened with a clearer outlook afforded by history.

See above. In best case you don't learn anything, in the worst you get a distorted view on history using your method. And I don't say at all we can't look back or derive lessons from history. It's just that the way you doing it hinders understanding.

To Godwinize this thread already, your method of judging what happened would mean we couldn't call the holocaust a crime against humanity, because the Nazi's (in the know, making the decisions) simply had a different mindset. It was not a crime against humanity to them. And that is what you say we have to judge by.

In fact we couldn't call anything other than what the people who did it saw it as. That is clearly a useless point of view to take. Would you say that the holocaust was not a crime against humanity?

Oh, I was sooooo waiting for some bull like this. That is not what I'm saying at all, but nice try. (And of course, you know what godwinizing means for a debate?)



But seriously:

The Holocaust wasn't the result of a long-standing cultural practice of genocide, and despite antisemitism (sometimes violent, though that was much earlier IIRC at least in case of Germany) being there since long ago, it wasn't a widely held-view to kill all Jews during the Kaiserrreich or during Weimar. While there where general rants of Hitler etc. incl. one that noted an extinction of the Jews, they weren't done in a way that this was put actively into practice by masskillings and death camps, it was painted as a consequence of the war. The NS regime often tried to hide what it was doing in practice, also because they were negative reactions to the progroms of the "Kristallnacht" in 1938. The Wannsee conference was secret, there was no mass media coverage of how much Jews were killed this week in Auschwitz etcetc. We also have other hints about it - maybe you know the historic footage where US soldiers lead the inhabitants of German cities to KZs to make them see what was *really* going on there.

That all is fundamentally different from slavery in ancient Rome which was visible and taken for granted in everyday life all the time, and which wasn't the result of a political force suddenly introducing it because of a ****ed up ideology by the help of massive propaganda and suppression of any opposition.

That all is not to say that nobody could know what was going on or that only some few NS guys are too blame, but that's another debate, I also think it would lead us too much away from the original point(s). But probably you can use this to paint me as a nazi and drive the godwinizing to new heights.

Also, all the stuff that was not in place in ancient Rome I mentioned was available and practiced in Germany before the NS time. It was post-enlightenment, slavery was illegal, lotsa ethical principles were known that the Romans had no idea of, and they were even practiced before 1933. Maybe you know that quite many Jews fought in WWI for Ger, sometimes got highly decorated. They were often accepted memebers of society, not seen as sub-humans. The nazis changed all that, but you'll have a hard time proving that it is comparable to the way slavery etc. developed in ancient societies or the views people held about it.

To sum up: NS Germany *was* after all a society in a *modern* historical context, contrary to ancient Rome.

Understanding the past helps us to form the future we prefer.

Agreed, you just fail on the "understanding the past" bit.

Why do you have to have a constructed "non-decadence" though? Are you so sure no one in Roman times viewed such acts as decadent? Why are you so defensive about the term "decadent" in the first place. Wouldn't they have respected the concept of self-indulgence as a status symbol?

I don't need to construct a "non-decadence". As posted before, certain ancient writers wrote about decadence, but not in a way that supports your point towards gladiatorial combat. In that sense I don't need to construct something, I simply notice decadence you mean didn't play a role there.

It may be you who is anachronistic. You are putting yourself in the place of the Roman and saying "don't judge me as decadent" because of your modern views on what that implies,

Nope, I say what we know about Rome doesn't make a "decadent" judgement helpful in this case. And that if you insist on it, you don't tell something about Rome, but about your own views.

when the Roman may very well have said, "look at me, I'm decadent, I can afford to be self-indulgent, this is a status symbol".

I you want to speculate about this, fine. It is just that speculation doesn't seem to be a great argument in my eyes. When nothing else than speculation is the base for your views and judgements, you're hopeless (Maybe I should repeat this a couple of times, that will make it true)

Amazingly enough, I do use (my own personal) modern standards. Not 2000yo defunct ideas that have clearly proven their lack of worth.

Which is a defunct idea, and rightly so. I'm not going to label actions based on defunct ideas. I have my own mind, thanks.

I'm glad to hear this.

Christ's teachings for example were known, and don't quite jive with the whole "decadent" lifestyle, certainly not with having people killed for sport.

They were known for some centuries before BC in ancient Rome when gladiatorial combat was already been done? How so?

Thanks for admitting you are ignoring voices from the past which don't agree with your modern view of what people back then said and thought.

Funny, but kinda cheap. "some exceptions ignored" meant of course that I'm well aware that it is more complex than I wrote in that part, but I had to simplify it. But probably you're one of the guys who knows much better what others wanted to say in their posts.

If you feel I left something out important feel free to point it out.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by BeBro
Works both ways, no? Just that I'm rather bored by the "if you think x then you're y, while I'm always >>> y" games.

You are a hypocrite to pretend like it is somehow a bad thing that a person would be confident in their stance. That is, unless you don't think you are right. In which case, you should probably stop saying things you think are not correct, at least not in the adamant manner in which you have been doing so.

If you want to feel superior, go ahead, it's quite amusing.

Your "it's quite amusing" is itself one of those things you are speaking against. Now that is amusing.

(I myself do not find anything wrong with such, not in an argument, especially internet based, at least. But since you obviously are speaking against such actions, it's hypocritical for you to attempt.)

Ignorance at work. The actor's perspective is an important part of historical research, and since you posted that the "gain is to learn from history" I'm wondering what we're learning when we just take the parts of history that could allow for a certain judgement and ignore others that could possibly stand against it.

The ignorance at work is yours.

I understand the actor's perspective. I simply do not need that perspective to make my own judgments on what is what. You want to pretend only the actor's perspective is useful. I simply do not use the actor's perspective when forming my own about an issue.

I do not need to say, "Well yah, the guy murdering those kids thought it was the right thing to do, and his views were a product of his environment, so we can't condemn the action." Such a viewpoint would be futile to hold, and necessarily hypocritical if you apply it to argue with someone else, as the implication there is you are ignoring your ideology to judge a viewpoint which your ideology says you can't judge. (Assuming the "actor" believes what they are saying.)

Thx for your concern, but the more I read from you, the less I care.

Well at least I'm helping you understand that the actor's viewpoint (in this case mine) isn't the only thing to consider when judging an act. You're going about it backwards, but at least it's progress in a weird sort of way.

I see, saying we shouldn't judge Rome in a certain way = judging Rome. Yes, it's a modern view, but one that clearly calls against making an explicit judgement about Rome in this way.

No. You are judging Roman actions in a certain way yourself, using your own "modern" views to form that judgment. That is why using the logic that we shouldn't judge Roman actions from a "modern" perspective is hypocritical in your case.

See above. In best case you don't learn anything, in the worst you get a distorted view on history using your method. And I don't say at all we can't look back or derive lessons from history. It's just that the way you doing it hinders understanding.

It doesn't hinder understanding. You can still judge the actor's perspective just fine. If that was the subject, then that would be the way to go about it. The subject is not the actor's perspective though, but the characteristics of the actual act itself.

If I asked you, what would Romans think about the nature of gladiatorial combat... fire away. That is an entirely different subject though.

Oh, I was sooooo waiting for some bull like this. That is not what I'm saying at all, but nice try.

It is the continuation of your logic that an act can only be judged based on the actor's perspective.

That all is fundamentally different from slavery in ancient Rome which was visible and taken for granted in everyday life all the time, and which wasn't the result of a political force suddenly introducing it because of a ****ed up ideology by the help of massive propaganda and suppression of any opposition.

The only difference is who was the actor. It was more limited in this case, but it's still the actor's mindset you say we must take into account.

That all is not to say that nobody could know what was going on or that only some few NS guys are too blame, but that's another debate, I also think it would lead us too much away from the original point(s). But probably you can use this to paint me as a nazi and drive the godwinizing to new heights.

You fail to understand the implications obviously. I am not painting you as a Nazi. I am painting your argument as one which would necessarily keep us from analyzing any act (that was not our own) utilizing our own viewpoints. Including those of Nazis.

(Understanding that would in fact lead to the conclusion that I was implying you were not a Nazi, and wouldn't agree with the actions that effected the holocaust. You got it backwards.)

Also, all the stuff that was not in place in ancient Rome I mentioned was available and practiced in Germany before the NS time. It was post-enlightenment, slavery was illegal, lotsa ethical principles were known that the Romans had no idea of, and they were even practiced before 1933.

You continue to ignore that there were competing ideologies in both cases. Not some universally accepted "Roman" and "modern" truths.

The simple fact is that Nazis and Romans both did what they thought was "right" in their own viewpoint. In some (or many) cases that was obviously not "right" in my viewpoint. Even today there is not one "modern" viewpoint on what is "right". You are ignoring that reality, and pretending like there is some all-encompassing agreement on "modern" ethics.

The Romans had their own viewpoints. Same with the Nazis. Those views would have differed quite a bit from individual to individual no doubt. Same with you and I. That does not change what our actions actually are.

To sum up: NS Germany *was* after all a society in a *modern* historical context, contrary to ancient Rome.

Like I said, you are the one ignorant of the vast discrepancy in both social and individual mindsets here. You want to pretend there is some universal "modern" viewpoint. That is ludicrous. There are differing opinions and ideologies today. There were differing opinions and ideologies back in Roman times as well.

In any case, it is irrelevant to the question of what you personally would call such an act. Especially since the questions were generalized. I didn't ask you what you would think of a Roman doing it. I asked you what you would think of the action itself.

"You wouldn't say having slaves kill each other for your amusement would be decadent?"

It's a question that has no specified actor. It's is a question dealing with the action itself, and your views on the action. I love how time and time again you've fallen all over yourself trying to avoid actually addressing this question.

Agreed, you just fail on the "understanding the past" bit.

I am glad you can agree with me about why it is important.

I understand the past far better than you seem to, since you admittedly deprive yourself of the advantage of hindsight.

I don't need to construct a "non-decadence".

Yet you do it anyway...

Decadent, meaning self-indulgent, is an applicable term. It is an acceptable use of the term. You have yourself admitted as much with your passive aggressive "watering down" argument. Whether it is "watering down" or not is irrelevant to the question of whether it is decadent or not. When you do this, you have constructed a "non-decadence" to refer to the actions.

You've refuted yourself.

Nope, I say what we know about Rome doesn't make a "decadent" judgement helpful in this case.

To judge whether decadent actions (our own view) is derogatory to civilization we have to view those actions and their effects in the past. Decadent actions are not derogatory because people think they are decadent (I hope we can agree on that), if they are, it is inherent to the action itself.

If we limit ourselves only to the viewpoint(s) of the "actors" then we are incapable of judging things in a manner which we can then apply to our own more current actions. If the Romans didn't view their actions as decadent, and we don't view our actions as decadent, then there's no problem, right? But there were problems. And there are problems. Our decadences are in some ways different than Romans, in some ways similar.

Understanding that we can judge actions from perspectives not "mainstream" is in and of itself a valuable tool. It necessarily is the only method we can use to understand if there are problems with our own current actions as a society. (Since the "mainstream" view of the "mainstream" can be considered rather self-affirming.)

By understanding how decadent (self-indulgent) behavior affects society, we can look back on such actions (whether they were viewed as decadent or not by the actors) to see what past effects of such actions have been. That is what the whole thing is about isnt it? The comparison to a glorification of violence in the past, to a glorification of violence in the present. Regardless of what stance you take on whether or not it's a valid comparison, or whether or not you link it to the same effect on society, it is obvious that such issues require that actions be viewed within a consistent context to draw any parallels from.

That is how we learn from the past. That is how we understand the present. By stepping out of the viewpoint of the "actors" and trying to gain a new perspective that isn't "standard" for the time(s). If we can't do that, we are just sheep being led around by prevalent societal norms.

I you want to speculate about this, fine.

You are speculating about it too.

It is just that speculation doesn't seem to be a great argument in my eyes.

That is speculation on your part.

When nothing else than speculation is the base for your views and judgements, you're hopeless

Then you are hopeless by your own definition.

(One which I don't agree with, as I think speculation is a very valuable tool. There are just far too many subjects where complete evidence, or perfectly objective evidence, is not available, or in some cases not even possible to obtain, and so often times conjecture has to be made. It is the reliability of the conjecture which matters, the estimation of which also happens to be speculation...)

(Maybe I should repeat this a couple of times, that will make it true)

Have fun making yourself look silly.

They were known for some centuries before BC in ancient Rome when gladiatorial combat was already been done? How so?

The very early religious rites may or may not have had competing viewpoints. (I'd be very wary of accepting that though, since records are not anywhere near complete, and human nature is such that there is rarely complete agreement on anything.)

The later, public spectacles, certainly occurred at times when there were recorded differing viewpoints. Gladiatorial combat was prevalent in Rome and the empire at a time when Christian ideology was also wide spread. This is rather obvious given that Christians who would not give up their faith were sometimes sentenced to be part of the spectacle.

Not all Christians would have opposed the gladiatorial combats themselves of course. But the ideology definitely speaks against it. Not much "turn the other cheek", or "love thy enemies" in it. And Christians generally were opposed to the public spectacle of it all, feeling it was a sin to watch such things. (Slavery itself seemingly wasn't opposed by Christians. Though I'm sure some slaves probably thought it was a bad idea, if not others.)

Even after Rome adopted Christianity as the official religion, gladiatorial combat continued on for about a century. So it's not like competing ideologies with implications on the concepts of killing each other, or the whole self-indulgent life of excess, wasn't available to Romans. Just as Nazis had available competing ideologies.

In both cases, they accepted what they accepted, and discarded the ideas that didn't suit them. Like we all do based on whatever criteria it is that is important to us.

Funny, but kinda cheap. "some exceptions ignored" meant of course that I'm well aware that it is more complex than I wrote in that part, but I had to simplify it. But probably you're one of the guys who knows much better what others wanted to say in their posts.

You are obviously ignoring that there were competing ideologies. If you did not mean to refer to those competing ideologies as things you were "ignoring", then so be it. You still are ignoring them though.

I was just giving you the benefit of the doubt, assuming that you understood that there were competing ideologies in Roman times. Sorry if I offended you by thinking you capable of such.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Aeson
You are a hypocrite to pretend like it is somehow a bad thing that a person would be confident in their stance. That is, unless you don't think you are right. In which case, you should probably stop saying things you think are not correct, at least not in the adamant manner in which you have been doing so.

I never said it's a bad thing that a person would be confident in their stance.

Your "it's quite amusing" is itself one of those things you are speaking against. Now that is amusing.

Now that is amusing. *goes into infinite loop*

(I myself do not find anything wrong with such, not in an argument, especially internet based, at least. But since you obviously are speaking against such actions, it's hypocritical for you to attempt.)



The ignorance at work is yours.

I understand the actor's perspective. I simply do not need that perspective to make my own judgments on what is what. You want to pretend only the actor's perspective is useful. I simply do not use the actor's perspective when forming my own about an issue.

I do not need to say, "Well yah, the guy murdering those kids thought it was the right thing to do, and his views were a product of his environment, so we can't condemn the action." Such a viewpoint would be futile to hold, and necessarily hypocritical if you apply it to argue with someone else, as the implication there is you are ignoring your ideology to judge a viewpoint which your ideology says you can't judge. (Assuming the "actor" believes what they are saying.)



Well at least I'm helping you understand that the actor's viewpoint (in this case mine) isn't the only thing to consider when judging an act. You're going about it backwards, but at least it's progress in a weird sort of way.



No. You are judging Roman actions in a certain way yourself, using your own "modern" views to form that judgment. That is why using the logic that we shouldn't judge Roman actions from a "modern" perspective is hypocritical in your case.



It doesn't hinder understanding. You can still judge the actor's perspective just fine. If that was the subject, then that would be the way to go about it. The subject is not the actor's perspective though, but the characteristics of the actual act itself.

If I asked you, what would Romans think about the nature of gladiatorial combat... fire away. That is an entirely different subject though.



It is the continuation of your logic that an act can only be judged based on the actor's perspective.



The only difference is who was the actor. It was more limited in this case, but it's still the actor's mindset you say we must take into account.



You fail to understand the implications obviously. I am not painting you as a Nazi. I am painting your argument as one which would necessarily keep us from analyzing any act (that was not our own) utilizing our own viewpoints. Including those of Nazis.

(Understanding that would in fact lead to the conclusion that I was implying you were not a Nazi, and wouldn't agree with the actions that effected the holocaust. You got it backwards.)



You continue to ignore that there were competing ideologies in both cases. Not some universally accepted "Roman" and "modern" truths.

The simple fact is that Nazis and Romans both did what they thought was "right" in their own viewpoint. In some (or many) cases that was obviously not "right" in my viewpoint. Even today there is not one "modern" viewpoint on what is "right". You are ignoring that reality, and pretending like there is some all-encompassing agreement on "modern" ethics.

The Romans had their own viewpoints. Same with the Nazis. Those views would have differed quite a bit from individual to individual no doubt. Same with you and I. That does not change what our actions actually are.



Like I said, you are the one ignorant of the vast discrepancy in both social and individual mindsets here. You want to pretend there is some universal "modern" viewpoint. That is ludicrous. There are differing opinions and ideologies today. There were differing opinions and ideologies back in Roman times as well.

In any case, it is irrelevant to the question of what you personally would call such an act. Especially since the questions were generalized. I didn't ask you what you would think of a Roman doing it. I asked you what you would think of the action itself.

"You wouldn't say having slaves kill each other for your amusement would be decadent?"

It's a question that has no specified actor. It's is a question dealing with the action itself, and your views on the action. I love how time and time again you've fallen all over yourself trying to avoid actually addressing this question.



I am glad you can agree with me about why it is important.

I understand the past far better than you seem to, since you admittedly deprive yourself of the advantage of hindsight.



Yet you do it anyway...

Decadent, meaning self-indulgent, is an applicable term. It is an acceptable use of the term. You have yourself admitted as much with your passive aggressive "watering down" argument. Whether it is "watering down" or not is irrelevant to the question of whether it is decadent or not. When you do this, you have constructed a "non-decadence" to refer to the actions.

You've refuted yourself.



To judge whether decadent actions (our own view) is derogatory to civilization we have to view those actions and their effects in the past. Decadent actions are not derogatory because people think they are decadent (I hope we can agree on that), if they are, it is inherent to the action itself.

If we limit ourselves only to the viewpoint(s) of the "actors" then we are incapable of judging things in a manner which we can then apply to our own more current actions. If the Romans didn't view their actions as decadent, and we don't view our actions as decadent, then there's no problem, right? But there were problems. And there are problems. Our decadences are in some ways different than Romans, in some ways similar.

Understanding that we can judge actions from perspectives not "mainstream" is in and of itself a valuable tool. It necessarily is the only method we can use to understand if there are problems with our own current actions as a society. (Since the "mainstream" view of the "mainstream" can be considered rather self-affirming.)

By understanding how decadent (self-indulgent) behavior affects society, we can look back on such actions (whether they were viewed as decadent or not by the actors) to see what past effects of such actions have been. That is what the whole thing is about isnt it? The comparison to a glorification of violence in the past, to a glorification of violence in the present. Regardless of what stance you take on whether or not it's a valid comparison, or whether or not you link it to the same effect on society, it is obvious that such issues require that actions be viewed within a consistent context to draw any parallels from.

That is how we learn from the past. That is how we understand the present. By stepping out of the viewpoint of the "actors" and trying to gain a new perspective that isn't "standard" for the time(s). If we can't do that, we are just sheep being led around by prevalent societal norms.



You are speculating about it too.



That is speculation on your part.



Then you are hopeless by your own definition.

(One which I don't agree with, as I think speculation is a very valuable tool. There are just far too many subjects where complete evidence, or perfectly objective evidence, is not available, or in some cases not even possible to obtain, and so often times conjecture has to be made. It is the reliability of the conjecture which matters, the estimation of which also happens to be speculation...)



Have fun making yourself look silly.



The very early religious rites may or may not have had competing viewpoints. (I'd be very wary of accepting that though, since records are not anywhere near complete, and human nature is such that there is rarely complete agreement on anything.)

The later, public spectacles, certainly occurred at times when there were recorded differing viewpoints. Gladiatorial combat was prevalent in Rome and the empire at a time when Christian ideology was also wide spread. This is rather obvious given that Christians who would not give up their faith were sometimes sentenced to be part of the spectacle.

Not all Christians would have opposed the gladiatorial combats themselves of course. But the ideology definitely speaks against it. Not much "turn the other cheek", or "love thy enemies" in it. And Christians generally were opposed to the public spectacle of it all, feeling it was a sin to watch such things. (Slavery itself seemingly wasn't opposed by Christians. Though I'm sure some slaves probably thought it was a bad idea, if not others.)

Even after Rome adopted Christianity as the official religion, gladiatorial combat continued on for about a century. So it's not like competing ideologies with implications on the concepts of killing each other, or the whole self-indulgent life of excess, wasn't available to Romans. Just as Nazis had available competing ideologies.

In both cases, they accepted what they accepted, and discarded the ideas that didn't suit them. Like we all do based on whatever criteria it is that is important to us.



You are obviously ignoring that there were competing ideologies. If you did not mean to refer to those competing ideologies as things you were "ignoring", then so be it. You still are ignoring them though.

I was just giving you the benefit of the doubt, assuming that you understood that there were competing ideologies in Roman times. Sorry if I offended you by thinking you capable of such. [/QUOTE]

[Aeson]

Originally posted by BeBro
I never said it's a bad thing that a person would be confident in their stance.

Then what is your point of bringing it up? Are you so insecure in your position that you have to resort to pretending like my own confidence in my stance is an actual issue?

Now that is amusing. *goes into infinite loop*

You fail. You were behaving exactly the way you pretended you were speaking against. It is not part of a loop if I point out your hypocrisy. I obviously (and as explicitly stated) do not find such comments a problem. You do.

To remind you:

"(I myself do not find anything wrong with such, not in an argument, especially internet based, at least. But since you obviously are speaking against such actions, it's hypocritical for you to attempt.) - Aeson"

[snoopy369]

All of this debate is rather amusing, but ultimately this is just the classic 'moral absolutism' versus 'moral relativism' argument that has been going on for millenia... and somehow I don't think this essentially eternal question can be resolved in a few posts...

[Kuciwalker]

Superficially it looks like that, but it's not.

[BeBMan]

Eh ****, I ****ed up my reply before being finished.

Here's the final version:

Your "it's quite amusing" is itself one of those things you are speaking against. Now that is amusing.

Now that is amusing. *goes into infinite loop*

I understand the actor's perspective. I simply do not need that perspective to make my own judgments on what is what. You want to pretend only the actor's perspective is useful.

Never said that, and the question is useful for what. I also posted explicitly before that I'm aware that judgements are made often not from the actors point of view, but from others, and added that it's not even a prob unless someone thinks his personal interpretation is the word of God on the matter. Still then the question is what you are learning from your judgement and if that helps you to understand history.

I do not need to say, "Well yah, the guy murdering those kids thought it was the right thing to do, and his views were a product of his environment, so we can't condemn the action." Such a viewpoint would be futile to hold, and necessarily hypocritical if you apply it to argue with someone else, as the implication there is you are ignoring your ideology to judge a viewpoint which your ideology says you can't judge.

See above.

Well at least I'm helping you understand that the actor's viewpoint (in this case mine) isn't the only thing to consider when judging an act.

Where did I say this again?

No. You are judging Roman actions in a certain way yourself, using your own "modern" views to form that judgment. That is why using the logic that we shouldn't judge Roman actions from a "modern" perspective is hypocritical in your case.

How exactly am I judging Rome "in a certain way" by not judging it?

It doesn't hinder understanding. You can still judge the actor's perspective just fine. If that was the subject, then that would be the way to go about it. The subject is not the actor's perspective though, but the characteristics of the actual act itself.

It does hinder understanding of ancient Roman history.

It is the continuation of your logic that an act can only be judged based on the actor's perspective.

Either it's a terrible misunderstanding or you're making things up, that wasn't my point at all as noted above and in another post before.

The only difference is who was the actor. It was more limited in this case, but it's still the actor's mindset you say we must take into account.

I pointed to some key differences.

You fail to understand the implications obviously. I am not painting you as a Nazi.

And I didn't say you did, it was rather a suggestion

The simple fact is that Nazis and Romans both did what they thought was "right" in their own viewpoint. In some (or many) cases that was obviously not "right" in my viewpoint. Even today there is not one "modern" viewpoint on what is "right". You are ignoring that reality, and pretending like there is some all-encompassing agreement on "modern" ethics.

Nope. But there are elements that are clearly modern, and weren't known in ancient Rome.

You want to pretend there is some universal "modern" viewpoint. That is ludicrous. There are differing opinions and ideologies today. There were differing opinions and ideologies back in Roman times as well.

Never posted anything like this, are you dreaming this? When speaking about "modern" ethical principles I say in no way that there isn't a lot diversity of "differing opinions and ideologies" today. That is simply not what I am doing. In no way I said there's an "universal modern viewpoint". Maybe you could actually refer to what I've written, and not what you think I want to "pretend".

"You wouldn't say having slaves kill each other for your amusement would be decadent?"

It's a question that has no specified actor. It's is a question dealing with the action itself, and your views on the action. I love how time and time again you've fallen all over yourself trying to avoid actually addressing this question.

I adressed it several times, just not in the way you wanted. I love how time and time again you're ignoring it because you don't like the answer.

I am glad you can agree with me about why it is important.

I understand the past far better than you seem to, since you admittedly deprive yourself of the advantage of hindsight.

Nonsense. The advantage of hindsight goes for us today in "shaping our future" as you put it (and also our present IMO), not to re-shape the past into something that it hasn't really been, because then we lose exactly that advantage.

By understanding how decadent (self-indulgent) behavior affects society, we can look back on such actions (whether they were viewed as decadent or not by the actors) to see what past effects of such actions have been. That is what the whole thing is about isnt it?

Maybe we should establish first if a behaviour is indeed what you're calling it, and by what criteria. And if establishing it in that way makes sense.

The comparison to a glorification of violence in the past, to a glorification of violence in the present. Regardless of what stance you take on whether or not it's a valid comparison, or whether or not you link it to the same effect on society, it is obvious that such issues require that actions be viewed within a consistent context to draw any parallels from.

and:

That is how we learn from the past.

What's the "consistent context" bit supposed to mean?

And the effect on society is there if I call say slavery/whatever decadent or not. I can still observe the effect on individual people and societies (given that I have sources that allow it) relying on slaves and tell from there if it's something I want or not. *That* is IMO how we learn from the past. I don't need to describe Vikings as barbarians or Romans as decadent for whatever reason, I can just look at what happened and tell that going on a plundering spree throughout Europe isn't something that I want to see today, as well as I don't want to have slavery re-introduced because of its effects. Surely I need to find ways to describe the effects, but saying "enslaving people means that they were regarded as things and couldn't decide anything for themselves/could be killed by their masters/could be sold around/whatever)" are possible descriptions that give me much more insight.

That is how we understand the present. By stepping out of the viewpoint of the "actors" and trying to gain a new perspective that isn't "standard" for the time(s). If we can't do that, we are just sheep being led around by prevalent societal norms.

Gaining a new perpective is not simply taking our already established perspective into the past. In fact that is not gaining a new perspective at all IMO.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by snoopy369
All of this debate is rather amusing, but ultimately this is just the classic 'moral absolutism' versus 'moral relativism' argument that has been going on for millenia... and somehow I don't think this essentially eternal question can be resolved in a few posts...

No... it's more like 'moral relativism' vs the definition of a term in this case.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by BeBro
I also posted explicitly before that I'm aware that judgements are made often not from the actors point of view, but from others, and added that it's not even a prob unless someone thinks his personal interpretation is the word of God on the matter.

Still upset that I think I'm correct are ya? I thought you said you didn't care about that. It's all you got?

Where did I say this again?

It's your implication.

You say I don't understand history because I have given my perspective on an action. By doing so you are implying that any perspective outside that of the actor is a misconception. Thus the only way to accurately describe an act is by the actor.

How exactly am I judging Rome "in a certain way" by not judging it?

Because you deny that the act is decadence in this specific case. Decadence simply means a self-indulgent act. You are claiming that the act is not self-indulgent. That is your "judgment".

As I said before, a Roman may even have taken pride in the level of self-indulgence they were capable of. It was a status symbol. In any case, it was self-indulgent, and "decadence" is a proper term to use to describe such actions.

Why are you so defensive about labeling self-indulgent actions as such?

It does hinder understanding of ancient Roman history.

No. If an act is self-indulgent and I call it decadent, it is simply using a properly defined term to describe an aspect of the act. It in no way impacts my ability to understand other issues.

And I didn't say you did, it was rather a suggestion

You implied I was (or would be) intent on painting you as a Nazi. I pointed out how your "suggestion" about my motivations was ignorant.

Nope. But there are elements that are clearly modern, and weren't known in ancient Rome.

It's irrelevant what the elements are. It is clear that in both cases there were accepted elements and non-accepted elements. Both parties.

You have ignored the examples I have provided.

Never posted anything like this, are you dreaming this? When speaking about "modern" ethical principles I say in no way that there isn't a lot diversity of "differing opinions and ideologies" today. That is simply not what I am doing. In no way I said there's an "universal modern viewpoint". Maybe you could actually refer to what I've written, and not what you think I want to "pretend".

You said it's useless to judge an act in ancient Rome by "modern" viewpoints. You said so in reference to my use of the term "decadent" in regards to acts I describe as "self-indulgent". That is not an ethical debate. You are debating the applicability of a term to it's definition.

I adressed it several times, just not in the way you wanted. I love how time and time again you're ignoring it because you don't like the answer.

No, you have never addressed it without dragging in a bunch of unnecessary "but Romans..." crap. The question didn't explicitly ask anything about Romans. You keep hiding behind moral relativism so as not to have to address a question of applicability of a term to an act.

Nonsense. The advantage of hindsight goes for us today in "shaping our future" as you put it (and also our present IMO), not to re-shape the past into something that it hasn't really been, because then we lose exactly that advantage.

I am not reshaping the past. Nor attempting to. The act either was decadent, or it was not. I have stated so. Was it self-indulgent to buy slaves and have them kill each other for your entertainment or social standing? Yes. It would be no matter the setting. It simply is a self-indulgent act.

You can hem and haw all you want about social implications, ethical viewpoints, but it's extremely obvious and simple. That is how the term is defined.

It's no different than calling Romans "Romans". You don't have to adopt a Roman mindset to do so. It's perfectly accurate to use a term to describe something that it's defined to describe.

Maybe we should establish first if a behaviour is indeed what you're calling it, and by what criteria. And if establishing it in that way makes sense.

Self-indulgent
Decadent

Check a dictionary.

You've already said I was correct. You did it to try to whine about "watering down" a definition. Why you're still arguing against a dictionary definition is beyond me.

What's the "consistent context" bit supposed to mean?

If I want to study how self-indulgent actions affect a society, I have to look at self-indulgent actions in the past to see how/if they affected society.

I can't just refrain from labeling actions as such because they were a norm in that given society... because in societies where they would have had the most effect (if any) they would be widespread, a norm if not the norm.

And the effect on society is there if I call say slavery/whatever decadent or not.

Duh. But you have to call them something. Using a term which definition applies to the act is what terms are for.

I can still observe the effect on individual people and societies (given that I have sources that allow it) relying on slaves and tell from there if it's something I want or not.

And you call it slavery? Why? Did they call it slavery? Does the term mean the same thing to us as it did to them? OMG they didn't think that slaves were people but modern people think slaves were people so you can't use the term SLAVERY to define what they were doing because THEY DIDN'T THINK THE SAME WAY WE DO and didn't have the same books describing ETHICS. STOP JUDGING THE SLAVE HOLDERS by calling them SLAVE HOLDERS![/chickenwithheadcutoff]

I don't need to describe Vikings as barbarians or Romans as decadent for whatever reason, I can just look at what happened and tell that going on a plundering spree throughout Europe isn't something that I want to see today, as well as I don't want to have slavery re-introduced because of its effects.

You're talking about labeling people, not actions, which is another matter entirely.

Gaining a new perpective is not simply taking our already established perspective into the past. In fact that is not gaining a new perspective at all IMO.

You're confusing perspective with definition of terms. You seem to think that my use of "decadence" is some sort of ethical refutation of Roman culture. All it is is labeling a specific action as self-indulgent. I don't need some Roman author's long dead words to tell me whether it was self-indulgent or not. It's self-evident.

When you want to talk about Roman aqueducts, do you say aqueducts?

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Aeson

Still upset that I think I'm correct are ya? I thought you said you didn't care about that. It's all you got?

I don't care what you think of me as a person. But if the debate should make a minimum of sense, I would at least expect that you don't misrepresent the stuff I wrote in the way you do repeatedly.

You say I don't understand history because I have given my perspective on an action.

By doing so you are implying that any perspective outside that of the actor is a misconception. Thus the only way to accurately describe an act is by the actor.

We could sooo do this forever. I posted before that I'm aware that judgements are made all the time from various POVs, and added that it's not even a prob unless someone thinks his personal interpretation is the word of God on the matter.

Because you deny that the act is decadence in this specific case. Decadence simply means a self-indulgent act.

and:

You said it's useless to judge an act in ancient Rome by "modern" viewpoints. You said so in reference to my use of the term "decadent" in regards to acts I describe as "self-indulgent". That is not an ethical debate. You are debating the applicability of a term to it's definition.

I never said it is an ethical debate. You completely misunderstand why I spoke about ethical principles. What is seen as "decadent" is not always the same in various historical situations. So the meaning of a term can change throughout history as well.

The meaning of decadence you use is a possible meaning in a modern sense, and appears so in a modern dictionary, never denied this. But why should it be relevant for ancient Rome? Are you claiming that meanings of terms never change throughout history?

When you use a term in the modern sense, you're not describing an (ancient) act as what it *is/was/has been*, but as what you *see it*, esp. since you simply say that other, for example ancient positions to it don't matter to you.

Again, I know it's done all the time, and it is not per se a problem, but it is when you're claiming this is the only possible way to look at it, or even that this would tell how something de facto *is/was/has been*.

No. If an act is self-indulgent and I call it decadent, it is simply using a properly defined term to describe an aspect of the act. It in no way impacts my ability to understand other issues.

It adds another layer of bias to already biased views on history. We have to deal with several sorts of bias anyway when we approach history, but at least we should be aware of it, and be able to remain critical to it.

No, you have never addressed it without dragging in a bunch of unnecessary "but Romans..." crap. The question didn't explicitly ask anything about Romans. You keep hiding behind moral relativism so as not to have to address a question of applicability of a term to an act.

I disagree that it was unnecessary. I presented a different perspective, you just can't handle it.

I am not reshaping the past. Nor attempting to.

Sure you're doing it. You're injecting your bias into it and claim it's not bias. That's the problem, not that you make a certain point, but how you present it as what something "is/was/has been*

The act either was decadent, or it was not.

I have stated so. Was it self-indulgent to buy slaves and have them kill each other for your entertainment or social standing? Yes. It would be no matter the setting. It simply is a self-indulgent act.

See above.

It's no different than calling Romans "Romans". You don't have to adopt a Roman mindset to do so. It's perfectly accurate to use a term to describe something that it's defined to describe.

It's the term they used themselves in the latin form. But it's actually a good example how things aren't as simple as you'd like to have them. In the modern sense, "Romans" means just inhabitants of Rome. Now in relation to ancient Rome "Romans" can mean this, and something else, for example everyone that get the rights of a Roman citizen, which at some point AD were not only those in the city of Rome, but all free inhabitants of the empire. We wouldn't call all Italians "Romans" today, not to mention people from other parts of the former Roman empire.

Self-indulgent
Decadent

Check a dictionary.

You've already said I was correct.

Adressed above.

If I want to study how self-indulgent actions affect a society, I have to look at self-indulgent actions in the past to see how/if they affected society.

I can't just refrain from labeling actions as such because they were a norm in that given society... because in societies where they would have had the most effect (if any) they would be widespread, a norm if not the norm.

You simply take it as a given that they're self-indulgent, then you call them self-indulgent. You're not learning anything from this about history.

Duh. But you have to call them something. Using a term which definition applies to the act is what terms are for.

I don't *have to* when the description of the effects is providing me with enough insight. Using terms to "call them something" *can* and surely is being done all the time, but the use can be debated.

And you call it slavery? Why? Did they call it slavery? Does the term mean the same thing to us as it did to them? OMG they didn't think that slaves were people but modern people think slaves were people so you can't use the term SLAVERY to define what they were doing because THEY DIDN'T THINK THE SAME WAY WE DO and didn't have the same books describing ETHICS. STOP JUDGING THE SLAVE HOLDERS by calling them SLAVE HOLDERS!

Man, ancient Rome called them slaves, slave owners etc. in latin forms, we're using the English translations. And a slave holder is someone who holds slaves ("technically" if you will), that is not something that depends on historical background like views on decadence.

When you want to talk about Roman aqueducts, do you say aqueducts?

Yes, because that is the English translation af the latin term "aquaeductus" used in ancient Rome. It's not something I apply to the past in an anachronistic way.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by BeBro
I posted before that I'm aware that judgements are made all the time from various POVs, and added that it's not even a prob unless someone thinks his personal interpretation is the word of God on the matter.

I said it's mine. If you confuse me and God, that's your problem.

I never said it is an ethical debate.

"You buy slaves. You have the slaves kill each other for your amusement. That is "decadent" in my book. Not yours?" - Aeson

"The thing is that I see little use in judging it via my own ethical standards." - BeBro

If you want to admit that your whole line of reasoning there was completely irrelevant, and that I wasn't making an ethical judgment as you suggested is the case in making such an assessment of the act... then fine, I accept your retraction.

What is seen as "decadent" is not always the same in various historical situations. So the meaning of a term can change throughout history as well.

I have defined my use of the term. It is a valid use of the term. That is all that matters when determining whether or not my use of the term applies to the act. Past (or even other present) definitions of the term do not apply because the definition of the term has been specified.

The meaning of decadence you use is a possible meaning in a modern sense, and appears so in a modern dictionary, never denied this. But why should it be relevant for ancient Rome?

Nothing is relevant anymore for ancient Rome. They're all dead.

I on the other hand am still here. When I label an action, I do so with applicable terms that accurately describe that action to the best of my estimation. I do not use Roman terms, or estimations, since they are defunct.

Now if I wanted to discuss what Romans thought about such actions, then their terms and estimations would be applicable. But to simply label an action for the purpose of comparing various aspects of the act to other acts with similar aspects, I don't need defunct terms and ideologies to tell me how to label them, and in fact would only obfuscate the issue by bringing them into it since the labels would be as inconsistent and various as the ideologies and use of terms.

Are you claiming that meanings of terms never change throughout history?

No. I am claiming that's what it means now, so my application of the term now is fitting. What they called it then is not the subject.

When you use a term in the modern sense, you're not describing an (ancient) act as what it *is/was/has been*, but as what you *see it*, esp. since you simply say that other, for example ancient positions to it don't matter to you.

Of course it's how I am describing the act. That doesn't mean my description doesn't fit.

Ancient positions to it don't matter to me in this context. I don't need Romans to tell me whether I find an act self-indulgent. Sorry.

That is not to say (as you are trying to) that I disregard Roman positions in other contexts. I've explicitly stated that if the question were to be about the Roman view of the acts, then it would be applicable to consider the Roman position. (Obviously.)

That is not the case though. The subject matter is not what the Romans thought about the acts.

Again, I know it's done all the time, and it is not per se a problem, but it is when you're claiming this is the only possible way to look at it, or even that this would tell how something de facto *is/was/has been*.

I never said it's the only way to look at it. I have explicitly stated that there are other ways to look at it in fact. You are ignoring that reality.

I have said (and implied) it is the applicable way to look at it though. That is what stating your view in a confident manner implies, that you find it the applicable viewpoint.

It adds another layer of bias to already biased views on history.

It strips away (or rather doesn't add) a layer of bias actually.

You are the one arguing that we have to consider the actors' bias about what to call their own act. It is not necessary to do so.

I disagree that it was unnecessary.

What part of, "Is it decadent to buy slaves to kill each other for your entertainment" requires a Roman perspective to answer? It is an unnecessary context you are adding to the description of an act.

You added context to the question to try to dance around answering. You indirectly answered "yes" to the question, after answering "no" in your convoluted way.

Sure you're doing it. You're injecting your bias into it and claim it's not bias.

I have not claimed anything about bias in this debate up until this post. I claimed it's my own perspective even (which implies bias). You're the idiot claiming you aren't biased. Now you're the idiot claiming you aren't biased pretending that bias is some sort of evil thing (like speculation) that has to be avoided at all cost.

That's the problem, not that you make a certain point, but how you present it as what something "is/was/has been*

What was... was that there were slaves used to kill each other for other people's amusement. I have never claimed otherwise.

What I call it is... decadent. This is what it is to me. (It is also what it was to some back then even, but you stick your head in the sand and pretend everyone in Roman times thought the same way so that you can pretend that everyone in Roman times would have disagreed with me.)

I am not confused about what was or what is. You are the one confusing the two, pretending that by my calling it decadent I am somehow changing what it was.

It's the term they used themselves in the latin form.

It is an applicable term to the subject matter. That's the point.

But it's actually a good example how things aren't as simple as you'd like to have them. In the modern sense, "Romans" means just inhabitants of Rome.

Show me one place where I have even defined what "Romans" meant. You're here trying to pretend that not only did I define who it applied to, but that I did so incorrectly.

You're completely delusional.

You simply take it as a given that they're self-indulgent, then you call them self-indulgent.

You simply take it as a given that they're not self-indulgent, then you call them not self-indulgent.

But then of course you admitted I'm right. So you're arguing against me, the dictionary, and yourself. Good work.

You're not learning anything from this about history.

It is inane to pretend that that it is not possible to learn anything from history by identifying acts based on modern criteria or definitions.

I don't *have to* when the description of the effects is providing me with enough insight. Using terms to "call them something" *can* and surely is being done all the time, but the use can be debated.

I did apply a label. And you have said by doing so I am not learning anything from history. (And a great many similar statements.) Thus you are denying that doing so is possible while still understanding history.

You are not simply arguing against the application of a term, or the use of a term, but the ability to use "non-actor" terms at all. You seem to not understand the implications of your own statements.

Man, ancient Rome called them slaves, slave owners etc. in latin forms, we're using the English translations.

As you yourself claimed, they did not view slaves as "thinking beings". "Modern" (to use your term) context of the term slave is that it is a human being with all that that entails. By calling Roman slaves "slaves" you are not taking into account the Roman views on "slaves" since you are using a modern term to describe the state of captivity these people were in.

To illustrate this more clearly: Would you say that slaves were thinking humans? Because back when slaves were held, they weren't (by your own claim) considered as such. So what is it... are you "biased against history", or do you think that slaves can be referred to as "humans" (and all that that entails in a modern context)?

Also, was Caesar (those who presented themselves, and were generally accepted as such) a god? Or would you say Caesar was just a man?

And a slave holder is someone who holds slaves ("technically" if you will), that is not something that depends on historical background like views on decadence.

Decadence is self-indulgence. It is similarly self-evident whether an act is self-indulgent or not. I don't have to ask the person who's act I view as self-indulgent whether or not they think they were self-indulgent before making that assessment. It is my use of the term, my definition of the term, my analysis of the act.

You can argue against my analysis, but to pretend that I can't make such analysis, that it would necessarily preclude understanding history, is retarded.

If I rely only on actor's views to describe their act, all I'll get is a bunch of self-interested bias. But if I rely on a consistent definition, I can identify similar acts regardless of actor and judge the effects that those acts had.

You can either apply the term based on your best understanding of the nature of the act, or you can pretend that you can only use the terms the actor used. I have done the first, you have tried to argue the second to pretend that my act is precluding understanding history.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Aeson

"You buy slaves. You have the slaves kill each other for your amusement. That is "decadent" in my book. Not yours?" - Aeson

"The thing is that I see little use in judging it via my own ethical standards." - BeBro

If you want to admit that your whole line of reasoning there was completely irrelevant, and that I wasn't making an ethical judgment as you suggested is the case in making such an assessment of the act... then fine, I accept your retraction.

I also asked if we "use modern views on law and ethics which weren't even developed back then?" You quoted that part and answered the thing about ancient Greeks, but made no objection to the "law and ethics" part then. That you did later by "You seem to think that my use of "decadence" is some sort of ethical refutation of Roman culture."

So at the earlier point I couldn't exactly be sure of it. But if you feel it's totally misleading then I take the "ethical" back indeed and obviously was wrong in saying that I never used it.

You'll have noticed however that I spoke of modern standards in general often. I still think there are problems with your approach. And also it's not that you never came up with nonsense in this thread, so let's go on before you get too comfortable on your high horse....

I on the other hand am still here. When I label an action, I do so with applicable terms that accurately describe that action to the best of my estimation. I do not use Roman terms, or estimations, since they are defunct.

Now if I wanted to discuss what Romans thought about such actions, then their terms and estimations would be applicable.

That would be indeed much more interesting since then we could at least hope to understand and learn something from history, which we IIRC agreed on as a goal.

It strips away (or rather doesn't add) a layer of bias actually.

At best you're stripping away the layer of the ancient actor's bias at the cost of adding the layer of your own bias. You however can't do away historical bias completely.

What part of, "Is it decadent to buy slaves to kill each other for your entertainment" requires a Roman perspective to answer? It is an unnecessary context you are adding to the description of an act.

You added context to the question to try to dance around answering. You indirectly answered "yes" to the question, after answering "no" in your convoluted way.

Because I don't see a reason to follow your approach slavely, esp. since I see problems with it. I add in some things because I find them worthy to consider. And since I think context is important, I can come to different answers, depending on the context(s).

I have not claimed anything about bias in this debate up until this post. I claimed it's my own perspective even (which implies bias). You're the idiot claiming you aren't biased. Now you're the idiot claiming you aren't biased pretending that bias is some sort of evil thing (like speculation) that has to be avoided at all cost.

Now that is truly brilliant once again. Not only that you have to add insulting remarks (and no, I still don't care about what you think about me, but that you actually felt the need to do this is quite telling) you also do it as a consequence of distorting completely what I was saying.

First I don't claim at all that I'm not biased. That would be nonsense. In fact I hinted "We have to deal with several sorts of bias anyway when we approach history, but at least we should be aware of it, and be able to remain critical to it."

How you can spin this into some "You're the idiot claiming you aren't biased." nonsense is really beyond me. Also I do not call bias "evil", but I think it poses certain problems when we look into the past, and that in various ways. So you got that one entirely ****ed up, and added insulting remarks on top of it as a consequence of your blackout.

I am not confused about what was or what is. You are the one confusing the two, pretending that by my calling it decadent I am somehow changing what it was.

Well, "is" statements are usually seen as describing how something *is* de facto, no? At least that's so in German. When I say "Slavery is wrong" it's a general judgement that doesn't make a diff whether it goes only for today, only for my view on it or whether was seen wrong back then, whether it was legal/illegal/whatever. But these are IMO important points to consider, esp. when the goal is to learn about history. When I say it's wrong, basta, how could they say it's not wrong in their time, why did they practice it over so long, even legally, where they just stupid, crazy? Etc. Etc. Means more problems IMO, additional need to explain why they "didn't get" it was wrong for a long time and as a vast majority (yeah, some did, but the society as a whole worked that way for long enough).

Show me one place where I have even defined what "Romans" meant. You're here trying to pretend that not only did I define who it applied to, but that I did so incorrectly.

Same as with the bias stuff. I didn't say you made a definition, I used this part to describe what I see as a problem with a term like "Romans".

As you yourself claimed, they did not view slaves as "thinking beings". "Modern" (to use your term) context of the term slave is that it is a human being with all that that entails. By calling Roman slaves "slaves" you are not taking into account the Roman views on "slaves" since you are using a modern term to describe the state of captivity these people were in.

To illustrate this more clearly: Would you say that slaves were thinking humans? Because back when slaves were held, they weren't (by your own claim) considered as such. So what is it... are you "biased against history", or do you think that slaves can be referred to as "humans" (and all that that entails in a modern context)?

I did say "slaves didn't even have a status as person, but as thing". If that does automatically mean that they were also seen in all aspects as non-human is unclear. They were clearly regarded as things in certain fields (for example law, that is what the status comment was about), it's certainly possible they were seen not as things in other aspects, after all Roman have noticed they were (often) not slaves from birth on, and slaves could also get the status of free men. Still that didn't change their notion how to treat slaves with all possible negative effects for a long time.

And if I say they're clearly seen as humans problems arise, because how could they treat humans as non-humans, etc. I do see them as humans, but that still poses the same problems (why didn't they, how could they etc.) And the answer is IMO absolutely not "because the slave owners were decadent" if that's what you're after.

Also, was Caesar (those who presented themselves, and were generally accepted as such) a god? Or would you say Caesar was just a man?

By my atheist criteria - man. In the historical situation more, maybe man and god. The thing is that my criteria allow me to say he was simply a man, but then I'm not learning something about how he was seen by others in his time. Then I can't understand at all the cult about Roman emperors, because after all, by my criteria, he was just a man. How then could he be a god for Romans. I'm missing an important part of Roman history. Does this not appear to be a prob to you?

Decadence is self-indulgence. It is similarly self-evident whether an act is self-indulgent or not. I don't have to ask the person who's act I view as self-indulgent whether or not they think they were self-indulgent before making that assessment. It is my use of the term, my definition of the term, my analysis of the act.

You can argue against my analysis, but to pretend that I can't make such analysis, that it would necessarily preclude understanding history, is retarded.

I posted several times now that you can, but that I can still see problems with it.

If I rely only on actor's views to describe their act, all I'll get is a bunch of self-interested bias.

But if I rely on a consistent definition, I can identify similar acts regardless of actor and judge the effects that those acts had.

And get a bunch of your own bias instead. Seriously - I think that is in fact the very core of the prob which I'm trying to describe all the time, and probably it comes really down to a absolute vs. relative thing (even when not in ethical terms, but still). But then we could simply agree to disagree and leave it at that. I don't see a reason to roll over and buy into your approach so far, and as I get from you you won't accept mine (which is certainly your good right).

The problem I see is that you don't want to get the "bunch of self-interested bias" from the ancients, but while you acknowledge your own bias, you seem to think it wouldn't affect your judgement in a similar way (though with another outcome since your bias has "modern content")?

[Aeson]

Originally posted by BeBro
That would be indeed much more interesting since then we could at least hope to understand and learn something from history, which we IIRC agreed on as a goal.

It is one of many things we can learn from history. It is not necessarily part of the others.

There are many other areas where people and even entire cultures were not aware of factors that we can see now more clearly due to being uninvolved, having a better understanding of how things work, ect.

Understanding those factors is by no means useless as you suggest.

At best you're stripping away the layer of the ancient actor's bias at the cost of adding the layer of your own bias. You however can't do away historical bias completely.

Our bias is necessarily always present in our analysis.

The effect of a bias depends on what the bias is and how it relates to the subject matter, not whether it is present or not.

And since I think context is important, I can come to different answers, depending on the context(s).

"Do you think that buying slaves to kill each other for your amusement is decadent?"

The context is now. Currently. In your own opinion. That is what the question asks. Not what you think about Romans doing the same, or what Romans would have thought about doing the same. You say you care about the context, but you ignore the context (or lack thereof) and create your own to "answer" what was a very straightforward question by not technically answering it at all.

If someone today bought slaves and had them kill each other for their amusement would you say that "decadent" is an applicable term (by no means the only applicable one, just an applicable term) to refer to it?

First I don't claim at all that I'm not biased.

When I say it was decadent, you claim that's my "constructed" bias.

When you say it wasn't decadent, you claim you have no "constructed" bias.

I admit my bias in practice. You say you have a bias but then don't admit it in practice.

Well, "is" statements are usually seen as describing how something *is* de facto, no? At least that's so in German. When I say "Slavery is wrong" it's a general judgement that doesn't make a diff whether it goes only for today, only for my view on it or whether was seen wrong back then, whether it was legal/illegal/whatever.

"Is" is current tense. "Was" is past tense. "Will be" is future tense.

When you said "was seen" you are referring to how it was seen in the past.

When I say, "it is decadent" I mean specifically that act is now seen as decadent. I do not mean it was seen as decadent.

But that all is aside from the point, since I would still say it was decadent behavior, since I don't have to adopt past viewpoints to make my own personal assessments of the nature of an act.

But these are IMO important points to consider, esp. when the goal is to learn about history.

The goal of the statement is only to borrow an example from history. Not to learn how Romans thought. That is it's own subject. Important in it's own right, but not the subject at hand.

Objectives are important to consider when determining how to reach them.

The effect of a factor on Roman life that we can observe, is the effect. Regardless of whether the Romans it was affecting realized that was the cause and/or effect. Even regardless of why it was that way in their lives.

That is useful information if you want to know why it was that way, but you don't need it to deal with what the actual effect was.

When I say it's wrong, basta, how could they say it's not wrong in their time, why did they practice it over so long, even legally, where they just stupid, crazy? Etc. Etc. Means more problems IMO, additional need to explain why they "didn't get" it was wrong for a long time and as a vast majority (yeah, some did, but the society as a whole worked that way for long enough).

You can have difference of opinion, even between you and Romans. You don't have to view things as they did. (And they didn't all view things the same way anyways.)

If you want to understand why they didn't accept other competing ideas and ways of life, that's it's own subject. And an important one itself.

Same as with the bias stuff. I didn't say you made a definition, I used this part to describe what I see as a problem with a term like "Romans".

You referred to me in doing so. Saying that the use of the term Roman wasn't how "you would like it". Since you were speaking directly to me, I assumed you were speaking about me.

I do see them as humans, but that still poses the same problems (why didn't they, how could they etc.) And the answer is IMO absolutely not "because the slave owners were decadent" if that's what you're after.

No... that's not what I'm after.

What I was after was to illustrate to you something which was viewed one way in the past, that you (and anyone sensible) would likely describe another in the present.

Slave owners in the past (at least at times) did not view slaves as human. We can say rather definitively that those slaves were human though. It is not important why slave owners thought they weren't human when we are determining whether the slaves were human or not.

By my atheist criteria - man.

"Your" criteria is explicitly implied when you are answering a question directed at you, about your opinion. You don't have to state that you are speaking from your own viewpoint. (You should make explicit when you are using other viewpoints though.)

The thing is that my criteria allow me to say he was simply a man, but then I'm not learning something about how he was seen by others in his time.

You are learning that he was a man. It does not keep you from understanding that Romans (at least many of them) thought otherwise. Or did you forget that when you said you think Caesar was a man? (I sure didn't.)

Then I can't understand at all the cult about Roman emperors, because after all, by my criteria, he was just a man. How then could he be a god for Romans. I'm missing an important part of Roman history. Does this not appear to be a prob to you?

It's actually easier to understand if you realize he was a man. If you think he was a god, then there's no real need to question how he got viewed as a god. The answer would be because he was a god and people accepted that "truth".

But if you accept Caesar was a man, then you can start to realize how a man can present themselves in such a way that people will believe that they are a god.

The problem I see is that you don't want to get the "bunch of self-interested bias" from the ancients, but while you acknowledge your own bias, you seem to think it wouldn't affect your judgement in a similar way (though with another outcome since your bias has "modern content")?

The problem is you assume that because in one case I don't want the "self-interested bias" that I disregard it in any case. You pretend that by accepting a fact as fact, and not worrying about how others saw that fact, that you can't understand how others saw that fact in other regards.

That is false. I can label an act, I can even be wrong about labelling that act. It does not mean that by doing so I cannot understand how Romans would view the act, or that that understanding is critical to the labeling at all. It just means for the current excersize it isn't necessary.

To wit, this thread is about GTA. By identifying similarities between GTA and Roman culture it may (or may not) be possible to estimate the effect GTA would have on our society.

(I don't think so, since a single computer game is almost surely going to have a rather negligible effect regardless of what it is, and even if it has a widespread effect in time, it would be extremely difficult to single out it's contributions from contributions of similar influences. But on a wider scope like the glorification of violence and generalized excess you certainly would see social implications, and possibly a contributor to a major impact to the society.)

When comparing, say, the glorification of violence in our culture to that of the glorification of violence in Rome, what we need is a consistent analysis between the two to deduce whether there is in fact even a similarity involved. And then to see whether there were any observable impacts in the past.

For such an exercise, it is not necessary to adopt a Roman perspective (even if there was a single one to adopt) or even a Modern perspective (even if there was one to adopt). You simply need a consistent measuring stick to go by, and an understanding of what actually happened, and what it's effects were.

Generally speaking, the society who is being negatively impacted by a factor is unlikely to realize it themselves, or at least accept it. Since if they did, they would fix it. That they don't realize what is happening and/or why doesn't mean the factors contributing don't exist. Just that they were not viewed that way.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Aeson
It is one of many things we can learn from history. It is not necessarily part of the others.

There are many other areas where people and even entire cultures were not aware of factors that we can see now more clearly due to being uninvolved, having a better understanding of how things work, ect.

Understanding those factors is by no means useless as you suggest.

In that very general form I agree with much of it but still the question remains how it's done in specific cases.

The "uninvolved, having a better understanding" thing is a bit tricky though. While I'm not arguing that we're directly involved like ancient Romans it's not at all sure that we have a better understanding when you mean specifically ancient history here. Esp. when arguing about ancient history there are still many things unclear. Some of these things may remain difficult to research due to loss/lack of sources, unless we get new input from additionally discovered stuff, archaeology, etc. which is however not guaranteed. The more we go back in time the more serious problems we usually have in this regard.

We are surely more advanced in various fields, have a much better understanding of a number of developments both going on and from the past, agreed.

Our bias is necessarily always present in our analysis.

Bias is always there, yes, said so myself, but if it's always there in the same degree is another thing.

If someone today bought slaves and had them kill each other for their amusement would you say that "decadent" is an applicable term (by no means the only applicable one, just an applicable term) to refer to it?

Sure I can say that for today, because then I can just use today's standards to measure it. After all to say something is decadent we need an idea of what we label not decadent, and that is today (of course) related to today's view on things. The meaning(s) of decadent and the standards what contitutes something as decadent/not decadent are however not something consistent throughout history.

When I say it was decadent, you claim that's my "constructed" bias.

When you say it wasn't decadent, you claim you have no "constructed" bias.

If you tell today that it was decadent in an explicit meaning it's a modern construct IMO unless you can show the same meaning was present in the situation you're looking at. The thing that it is an construct is not a prob per se, IMO. Just that I wouldn't say my construct is what the act was itself.

And disagreeing with what I see as your construct does not mean I don't have bias. Did I post that ever? I'm too lazy to go back and check, but IIRC I did not, and my clarification that I do of course acknowledge I'm biased should do.

I admit my bias in practice. You say you have a bias but then don't admit it in practice.

Of course I have bias as well, but if I just describe what happened and maybe how it was seen (judged) in the time itself, there's still bias present, since after all I can't switch it off completely but it's IMO a good deal less of potential to influence others, leaving more room for those confronted with it to make up their own mind about it (which includes for example pointing out where my bias - still - may come through, so even in practice I don't deny my bias).

But that all is aside from the point, since I would still say it was decadent behavior, since I don't have to adopt past viewpoints to make my own personal assessments of the nature of an act.

And I think is that this is not something primarily about the "nature" of the act. As a "personal assessment" it is IMO first an interpretation of the act. And with historical stuff, it's often an interpretation of interpretation(s) of an act, since we can't experience most of history directly (only the part we live in, and that also only in a limited way).

You are learning that he was a man. It does not keep you from understanding that Romans (at least many of them) thought otherwise. Or did you forget that when you said you think Caesar was a man? (I sure didn't.)

I learn he was a man (and not god) by calling him a man? That seems not to be the case. First I would need to have certain knowledge about the past to answer the man/god question at all.

That knowledge I usually get from looking into the past using material that allows me to find out about Caesar or the other caesars (the emperors). Here is IMO a learning process. I can find for example that the ancient guys could think he was maybe (hu)man, godly, godlike, god or even both man and god at the same time, and that historians today are split about how to deal with the many aspects of the matter.

I answered however not in this way, but explicitly by pointing to my atheist background, so I just ignored all that and simply stated I think he is a man (cuz I don't believe in gods at all). But here I was just expressing the core idea of my world view, which is not learning IMO.

The problem is you assume that because in one case I don't want the "self-interested bias" that I disregard it in any case. You pretend that by accepting a fact as fact, and not worrying about how others saw that fact, that you can't understand how others saw that fact in other regards.

If by fact you mean "objective/absolute true", then I disagree that your judgement constitutes a fact in this sense.

To wit, this thread is about GTA. By identifying similarities between GTA and Roman culture it may (or may not) be possible to estimate the effect GTA would have on our society.

Well, then I may agree (or disagree) with this

When comparing, say, the glorification of violence in our culture to that of the glorification of violence in Rome, what we need is a consistent analysis between the two to deduce whether there is in fact even a similarity involved. And then to see whether there were any observable impacts in the past.

For such an exercise, it is not necessary to adopt a Roman perspective (even if there was a single one to adopt) or even a Modern perspective (even if there was one to adopt). You simply need a consistent measuring stick to go by, and an understanding of what actually happened, and what it's effects were.

Maybe it's just a language problem, but I'm not sure if I understand the "consistent analysis between the two" bit. I'd simply say for comparing different systems you need a category under which a comparison makes sense, then you can even compare the famous apples and oranges. If you have that for a comparison of "glorification of violence" it's ok. Comparison however is not only about finding similarities (which can be there), often you'll rather get differences.

Generally speaking, the society who is being negatively impacted by a factor is unlikely to realize it themselves, or at least accept it. Since if they did, they would fix it. That they don't realize what is happening and/or why doesn't mean the factors contributing don't exist. Just that they were not viewed that way.

There are many probs in our societies and it's not clear in all cases if we're able to fix them, despite we're aware of them. Is it clear that we "fix" drug use or crime (I'd say we realize these are probs and that they have negative impacts), just to mention a few? And similarly I wouldn't say that ancient Romans didn't identify problems and negative impacts in their society. Probably be not all, maybe not always to their full extent (that would require me to to a lengthy study I'm much too lazy for), but we have sources telling of various probs, so I would disagree that it's "unlikely" at this point.

With slavery it's also the question when it becomes a factor of negative impact, and negative in what way. Earlier the Roman economy relied on it, later it became an economic and also social problem since the larger and larger numbers of slaves led to impoverization of free lower class Romans, and it was even tried to drive slavery back again. If you want to establish that it was negative because it was bad to treat people as slaves we would be quickly be drawn into the ethical dimension again (which I understood you don't want).