[extropy-chat] CULTURE: Did Romans ruin Greek Culture?

[Giu1i0 Pri5c0]

While I think we could find better terms than "civilization" and "culture"
for these distinctive features of the classical Roman and Greek mindsets, I
think we always had both Romans and Greeks in any society: people who
develop ideas, and people who turn ideas into reality. It is very unfrequent
that the same person can function equally well as a Roman and as a Greek. As
a Greek, I have a deep admiration for Romans: those who can choose a goal
and work monomaniacally at it until the goal has been accomplished, then
move to another goal. We Greeks often juggle with many, at time incompatible
goals, and too often do not accomplish any.
Clearly collaboration between Romans and Greeks is the way to go. But don't
underestimate the power of Greeks: I don't remember who said that men of
action are just a tool in the hands of men of thought.
G.

-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org]On Behalf Of
natashavita at earthlink.net
Sent: miércoles, 10 de marzo de 2004 19:42
To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
Subject: [extropy-chat] CULTURE: Did Romans ruin Greek Culture?


I was just reading a couple of chapters from _The Decline of the West_ by
Oswald Spengler.  (Special ed. New York: Knopf, 1939.)  These sepcific
ideas about culture and civilization are new to me.  Apparently, according
to Spengler, civilization is the death of culture.


Chapter 5:  THE PROBLEM OF "CIVILIZATION" [24-27]

"Looked at in this way, the "Decline of the West" comprises nothing less
than the problem of Civilization. We have before us one of the fundamental
questions of all higher history. What is civilization, understood as the
organic-logical sequel, fulfillment, and finale of a culture?"

"So, for the first time, we are enabled to understand the Romans as the
successors of the Greeks, and light is projected into the deepest secrets
of the late-Classical period. What, but this, can be the meaning of the
fact--which can only be disputed by vain phrases--that the Romans were
barbarians who did not precede but closed a great development? Unspiritual,
unphilosophical, devoid of art, clannish to the point of brutality, aiming
relentlessly at tangible successes, they stand between the Hellenic Culture
and nothingness. An imagination directed purely to practical objects was
something which is not found a t all in Athens. In a word, Greek
soul--Roman intellect; and this antithesis is the differentia betwene
Culture and Civilization. Nor is it only to the Classical it applies. Again
and again there appears this type of strong-minded, completely
non-metaphysical man, and in the hands of this type lies the intellectual
and material destiny of each and every "late" period. Pure Civilization, as
a historical process, consists in a progressive exhaustion of forms that
have become inorganic or dead."

It seems that the Romans were interested in "realitiy."  And mostly
interested in portraiture and making statues that really looked like a
particular person, and usually a "famous" person.  The Greeks seemed to be
more interested in "ideals" and "beautiful man" or "athletic" man.

However, these chapters from _The Decline of the West_ make it look like
Romans were a "civilization" and Greeks were a "culture" and civilization
is the end, the death of culture.

Any thoughts?

Natasha
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.614 / Virus Database: 393 - Release Date: 05/03/2004