FA+
Shop
Old Timey Thinkin'- a Primer
15 years ago
General
Thinking about Sejhat. Again. Yup. Can't stop it, so I won't try.
The last journal I posted was about old timey fightin', with the concepts and basics of early modern warfare, the kind of combat that forms a strong inspiration for the kind of combat I had in mind for the Realm of Sejhat in its current time line.
Of course, bullets and battles alone do not a proper realm make. Case in point: The Halo franchise. As I created the various races, along with their dispositions, capabilities, and failings, I realized that I was running into social, political, and economic concepts that had precedent in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries.
Why does this matter? Because new ideas create friction with old ideas, and from this friction arises the kind of narrative we have come to love. Here are some of the concepts I've found inspiring, if not enlightening.
THE ENLIGHTENMENT-
Considered a successor to the Age of Reason and a precursor to the Modern Age, the Enlightenment fits pretty neatly into the 18th century. While it shares similarities to the Renaissance and the Age of Reason in terms of an abundance of philosophies, what makes it stand out from the others is the fact that many social concepts in the Enlightenment advocated free thought and action. Concepts like the separation of religion and state, the unimpeachable rights of man, the wealth and welfare of individuals, and the public sphere were all developed or popularized during the era. These 'radical' concepts popularly culminated in the American and French Revolutions, but in detail the Enlightenment had broad and permanent effects on wealth and power that continue influence modern affairs to this day.
MERCANTILISM-
One of the oldest and most outmoded schools of Economics, Mercantilism is essentially the belief that the amount of capital (bullion or otherwise) in the state's coffers is the sole measure of wealth. It also believes that the overall volume of trade is unchangeable. Mercantilism is also called Economic Nationalism because it encouraged exports and discouraged imports through subsidies and tariffs, respectively. Mercantilism was one of the key motivating factors in the creation and growth of overseas empires, and it also fueled a lot of conflict between world powers. It forbade 'unnecessary importation' and greatly discouraged spending capital to acquire goods. In essence, Mercantilism is penny-pinching writ large, with the main goal being to hoard wealth. It had significant weaknesses, in particular disregarding private enterprise, disregarding the fundamental reasoning behind trade, and disregarding inflation. Eventually it was succeeded by Classical Economics.
CLASSICAL ECONOMICS-
Classical Economics is the belief that the sum total of a nation's wealth is based upon its citizenry, rather than its treasury. It is also the belief that expanded trade is not only possible but beneficial, and that a free market unburdened by significant taxes is key to prosperity. This was a direct response to the failings and foibles of Mercantilism. Adam Smith is generally considered the founding father of this school of thought, though he had many significant contemporaries. The adoption of Classical Economics encouraged the explosive growth of industry, banking, and free trade, turning Mercantilism on its head. Classical Economics had its flaws, however, the most fundamental being its 'Value Theory'. The Classicists believed that the value of an object was tied to the cost of its materials combined with the cost of labor and handling. In reality, 'value' is much more arbitrary and is based primarily on need, rather than built-in costs.
INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS-
Although the most common example of this is Thomas Paine's "Rights of Man", the concept of inalienable individual rights is an old one. Generally, the concept of individual rights is the belief that individuals have the right to be protected against unfair persecution by the government or by the popular majority. It is also the belief that the people, if they are alienated by the state, have a right to overthrow the government. It's difficult to define universal individual rights, as each nation has its own concepts for what personal rights are treasured and which are not. Among these are freedom of expression, freedom of action, freedom of religion, freedom of privacy, and freedom of assembly.
INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION-
Commonly thought of as the Steam Age, the Industrial Revolution has less to do with steam motive power than it does with the overall organization of labor. Prior to the Industrial Revolution, craftsmen and tradesmen created finished goods individually, often by hand or with the aid of basic tools. For instance, to create a cotton shirt one needed to separate the cotton from the boll, clean it, spool it into thread, dye it, weave it (usually in a hand loom), cut it into shapes, and assemble it into a shirt. All of these tasks were done by small groups of artisans, from start to finish. This meant that craftsmen were skilled laborers, but that work was often painstakingly slow. In order to increase production some enterprising individuals divided the stages of work involved in manufacturing goods, giving a large number of individuals a specific task, allowing more units to be manufactured at once. This division of labor also simplified it greatly, allowing for people with little technical skill to participate in the manufacture of complex finished goods. Many multitudes of inventions, from innovations in motive power to simple improvements, accelerated production and drove down prices. Low-priced goods allowed more people than ever to afford goods that were otherwise out of reach, so increased demand often offset decreasing prices. While many craftsmen and artisans were driven out of work by the industrial revolution, it had drastic effects on the fabric of society, the stratification of wealth, and the availability of goods to every individual.
MALTHUSIANISM AND SOCIAL DARWINISM-
While very separate concepts, many rulers and people of power were mutually influenced by the concepts of Thomas Robert Malthus and Charles Darwin. Malthus, an economist and demographer, believed that unchecked population growth would always subvert the pursuit of utopia, and that a state of utopia for mankind is fundamentally unobtainable due to a scarcity of resources. Darwin, a naturalist, was influenced by Malthus in the creation of his Theory of Evolution and posited that nature selects positive traits from individuals, thus allowing useful adaptations to survive in a world of scarcity and limitation. Social Darwinism often misconstrued Darwin's work by emphasizing the 'survival of the fittest', a concept which Darwin himself did not truly embrace. Even so, the belief that utopia is unobtainable for all combined with the concept that the wealthy and successful exist because of a natural mandate created justification, in the minds of many in high society, to accept society's ills as inevitable. Social Darwinism also provided pseudo-scientific backing for racism and eugenics, and while Malthus and Darwin never advocated racism their arguments were (and are) often used to justify the stratification of wealth among a 'select' few, since altruism is misguided and only the successful should, by nature, be allowed to thrive.
DIALECTICS-
Seemingly in contrast to the concepts of 'survival of the fittest', dialectics is the belief that two contradicting concepts can, and will, coexist in the same universe, meaning that efforts to negate one or the other are futile. While one concept or another may gain prevalence it will never nullify the existence of its nemesis, thus forcing individuals to comprehend and coexist with their rivals. In philosophical terms, a Dialectical conversation differs from a Debate because two individuals with opposing viewpoints will try to seek common ground and compromise rather than try to prove each other wrong. While Dialectics as a philosophical system may even predate the Ancient Greeks, its more modern and popular interpretation is that of Georg Hegel, who introduced the notion that two contradictory notions, after disposing of their less relevant or functional parts, can combine to create an entirely new notion. For example, on the concept of living beings, Hegel believed that living is "Being", that death is "Nothing", but because the living share characteristics with the dead, life as we know it can be called "Becoming". No one ever accused Hegel of being an easy read, but the value on acceptance and compromise created by Dialectics provides an alternative to Absolutism, which tends to believe in a supreme ideal over all other concepts.
I DO BELIEVE THAT IS ENOUGH.
The last journal I posted was about old timey fightin', with the concepts and basics of early modern warfare, the kind of combat that forms a strong inspiration for the kind of combat I had in mind for the Realm of Sejhat in its current time line.
Of course, bullets and battles alone do not a proper realm make. Case in point: The Halo franchise. As I created the various races, along with their dispositions, capabilities, and failings, I realized that I was running into social, political, and economic concepts that had precedent in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries.
Why does this matter? Because new ideas create friction with old ideas, and from this friction arises the kind of narrative we have come to love. Here are some of the concepts I've found inspiring, if not enlightening.
THE ENLIGHTENMENT-
Considered a successor to the Age of Reason and a precursor to the Modern Age, the Enlightenment fits pretty neatly into the 18th century. While it shares similarities to the Renaissance and the Age of Reason in terms of an abundance of philosophies, what makes it stand out from the others is the fact that many social concepts in the Enlightenment advocated free thought and action. Concepts like the separation of religion and state, the unimpeachable rights of man, the wealth and welfare of individuals, and the public sphere were all developed or popularized during the era. These 'radical' concepts popularly culminated in the American and French Revolutions, but in detail the Enlightenment had broad and permanent effects on wealth and power that continue influence modern affairs to this day.
MERCANTILISM-
One of the oldest and most outmoded schools of Economics, Mercantilism is essentially the belief that the amount of capital (bullion or otherwise) in the state's coffers is the sole measure of wealth. It also believes that the overall volume of trade is unchangeable. Mercantilism is also called Economic Nationalism because it encouraged exports and discouraged imports through subsidies and tariffs, respectively. Mercantilism was one of the key motivating factors in the creation and growth of overseas empires, and it also fueled a lot of conflict between world powers. It forbade 'unnecessary importation' and greatly discouraged spending capital to acquire goods. In essence, Mercantilism is penny-pinching writ large, with the main goal being to hoard wealth. It had significant weaknesses, in particular disregarding private enterprise, disregarding the fundamental reasoning behind trade, and disregarding inflation. Eventually it was succeeded by Classical Economics.
CLASSICAL ECONOMICS-
Classical Economics is the belief that the sum total of a nation's wealth is based upon its citizenry, rather than its treasury. It is also the belief that expanded trade is not only possible but beneficial, and that a free market unburdened by significant taxes is key to prosperity. This was a direct response to the failings and foibles of Mercantilism. Adam Smith is generally considered the founding father of this school of thought, though he had many significant contemporaries. The adoption of Classical Economics encouraged the explosive growth of industry, banking, and free trade, turning Mercantilism on its head. Classical Economics had its flaws, however, the most fundamental being its 'Value Theory'. The Classicists believed that the value of an object was tied to the cost of its materials combined with the cost of labor and handling. In reality, 'value' is much more arbitrary and is based primarily on need, rather than built-in costs.
INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS-
Although the most common example of this is Thomas Paine's "Rights of Man", the concept of inalienable individual rights is an old one. Generally, the concept of individual rights is the belief that individuals have the right to be protected against unfair persecution by the government or by the popular majority. It is also the belief that the people, if they are alienated by the state, have a right to overthrow the government. It's difficult to define universal individual rights, as each nation has its own concepts for what personal rights are treasured and which are not. Among these are freedom of expression, freedom of action, freedom of religion, freedom of privacy, and freedom of assembly.
INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION-
Commonly thought of as the Steam Age, the Industrial Revolution has less to do with steam motive power than it does with the overall organization of labor. Prior to the Industrial Revolution, craftsmen and tradesmen created finished goods individually, often by hand or with the aid of basic tools. For instance, to create a cotton shirt one needed to separate the cotton from the boll, clean it, spool it into thread, dye it, weave it (usually in a hand loom), cut it into shapes, and assemble it into a shirt. All of these tasks were done by small groups of artisans, from start to finish. This meant that craftsmen were skilled laborers, but that work was often painstakingly slow. In order to increase production some enterprising individuals divided the stages of work involved in manufacturing goods, giving a large number of individuals a specific task, allowing more units to be manufactured at once. This division of labor also simplified it greatly, allowing for people with little technical skill to participate in the manufacture of complex finished goods. Many multitudes of inventions, from innovations in motive power to simple improvements, accelerated production and drove down prices. Low-priced goods allowed more people than ever to afford goods that were otherwise out of reach, so increased demand often offset decreasing prices. While many craftsmen and artisans were driven out of work by the industrial revolution, it had drastic effects on the fabric of society, the stratification of wealth, and the availability of goods to every individual.
MALTHUSIANISM AND SOCIAL DARWINISM-
While very separate concepts, many rulers and people of power were mutually influenced by the concepts of Thomas Robert Malthus and Charles Darwin. Malthus, an economist and demographer, believed that unchecked population growth would always subvert the pursuit of utopia, and that a state of utopia for mankind is fundamentally unobtainable due to a scarcity of resources. Darwin, a naturalist, was influenced by Malthus in the creation of his Theory of Evolution and posited that nature selects positive traits from individuals, thus allowing useful adaptations to survive in a world of scarcity and limitation. Social Darwinism often misconstrued Darwin's work by emphasizing the 'survival of the fittest', a concept which Darwin himself did not truly embrace. Even so, the belief that utopia is unobtainable for all combined with the concept that the wealthy and successful exist because of a natural mandate created justification, in the minds of many in high society, to accept society's ills as inevitable. Social Darwinism also provided pseudo-scientific backing for racism and eugenics, and while Malthus and Darwin never advocated racism their arguments were (and are) often used to justify the stratification of wealth among a 'select' few, since altruism is misguided and only the successful should, by nature, be allowed to thrive.
DIALECTICS-
Seemingly in contrast to the concepts of 'survival of the fittest', dialectics is the belief that two contradicting concepts can, and will, coexist in the same universe, meaning that efforts to negate one or the other are futile. While one concept or another may gain prevalence it will never nullify the existence of its nemesis, thus forcing individuals to comprehend and coexist with their rivals. In philosophical terms, a Dialectical conversation differs from a Debate because two individuals with opposing viewpoints will try to seek common ground and compromise rather than try to prove each other wrong. While Dialectics as a philosophical system may even predate the Ancient Greeks, its more modern and popular interpretation is that of Georg Hegel, who introduced the notion that two contradictory notions, after disposing of their less relevant or functional parts, can combine to create an entirely new notion. For example, on the concept of living beings, Hegel believed that living is "Being", that death is "Nothing", but because the living share characteristics with the dead, life as we know it can be called "Becoming". No one ever accused Hegel of being an easy read, but the value on acceptance and compromise created by Dialectics provides an alternative to Absolutism, which tends to believe in a supreme ideal over all other concepts.
I DO BELIEVE THAT IS ENOUGH.
...are you absolutely sure you aren't a museum curator somewhere?
MONARCHISM-
Possibly the oldest form of organized government in the history of human civilization, a single ruler with authority over all others is widely regarded as the most efficient, most capable, and most highly corruptible form of government. The development of the theological-political bond, demonstrated in the practice of a divine selection for monarchs and their hereditary line (seen very prominently in any great civilization's history), cemented the belief in this system deeply in the traditions, expectations, and desires of humanity. Throughout the Enlightenment and beyond, one of the understated motivations of counter-reformists was to ensure the longevity of this ancient system. Even today, much of the world falls back on this form of government, even if the vernacular is "autocratic" or "tyrannical" instead of "monarchical" when discussed in Western (decidedly anti-autocratic) circles.
ANTHROPOLOGICAL RELATIVISM-
More commonly known as "tolerance" and being "politically correct", relativism is the belief that all societies and belief systems are equally valid, and it is a matter of enculturation and preference for which an individual or a group may subscribe to. This is a dramatic reversal of the predominant thought of Social Darwinism, which most prominently displayed by transcontinental empires in the 15th through mid 20th centuries, but was practiced nonetheless by smaller communities of scientists and socially liberal explorers as early as the mid 17th century. The belief in anthropological relativism is one of the reasons the Western world is capable of accepting minority populations into society while practicing its widespread self-adulation about the superiority of its own belief systems.
NATIONALISM-
Almost as old (and by some theories older than) monarchism is nationalism. The concept of a nation-state requires two things: a geographic border (often requiring the recognition by neighbors), and a people bound by a common identity. A nationalistic society will behave with, as its first priority, the interests of "nationals", or those belonging to their nation over that of its neighbors, or even domestic demographically significant groups which do not subscribe to nationality (ex.: immigrants). This nation-state is the principle actor in international relations (hence the political science term), and is the principle actor in both conflict and cooperation. A nation does not act outside of its own interest, and the illusion of cooperation is only such for the satisfaction of national interest to be gained through allied action. This is, by many theorists, the supreme defining characteristic of international relations, and is applicable from prehistory until today.
Glad to know there are fellow thinkers out here!