Another reaction to my reaction to political philosophy from back in the day! Yay!
This time it's Ibn Khaldun, ie, this Islamic philosopher who existed in like the middle ages. Society was such where Islamic society was booming, while Europeans were basically in their dark ages. Anyway, this guy was interesting enough to talk about too.
Personally, I agree with much Khaldun’s view of history and the world. It is very advanced for his time and adopts a rather scientific perspective (Khaldun, 5-69). In my research methods class I am taking right now, one of the main issues we grapple with is how we know what we know (Other class, 2/2/09-2/4/09). Khaldun used logic to poke holes in many of stories people told in his time (Khaldun, 36-37). After all, it would not make sense that Alexander the Great would go underwater in a box to observe sea monsters wreaking havoc on his empire (Khaldun, 36). Moreover, Khaldun approached the world from a scientific perspective; he knew the earth was round and even accurately predicted the circumference of the earth (Khaldun, 49; Geography). He said that the “the geographical degree is twenty-five parasangs, the parasang being 12,000 cubits or three miles” (Khaldun, 49). This means that one degree is seventy-five miles (Khaldun, 49). He also recognized that the earth’s circumference is divided into 360 degrees (Khaldun, 49). Seventy-five miles times 360 degrees is twenty-seven thousand miles (Khaldun, 49). The real circumference is 24,860 miles (Geography). Therefore, Khaldun was actually very close (Khaldun, 47; Geography). What makes me so intrigued with Khaldun’s scientific explanations of the world is about this is the fact that during this time, many people still believed that the earth was flat. After all, he lived in the fourteenth and early fifteenth century before Columbus made his journey to the New World (Khaldun, xxxvii-xxxix). This is a side of history that I have never heard of before this class.
I do not, however, agree with Khaldun’s views on why certain races are superior and others inferior (Khaldun, 58-64). While I believe that culture and the environment have some impact on why certain civilizations are more advanced than others, I do not think that climate effects a person’s intelligence (Khaldun, 58-64). Looking at history, I also disagree that advanced civilization cannot develop in hot or cold climates (Khaldun, 58-64). Until recently, the Soviet Union, which has one of the coldest climates in the world, was one of the two major powers in the world (Kegley, 108-115). Moreover, I think it is safe to say that climate does not have as much of an impact on one’s skin color than genetics (Khaldun, 60-61). While one can tan his or her skin by being in the sun all of the time, this does not necessarily mean that a person’s descendents will change color just because they are moved to a completely different climate (Khaldun, 60-61). However, I can understand why Khaldun believed this. After all, Europe is in the North, and there are a lot of white people in Europe. Moreover, Africa is in the south, and many black people live in Africa. In his time, Muslims in the temperate zones dominated most of the known world (Class, 2/25/09).
I agree with Khaldun that human organization is necessary (Khaldun, 45-46). Without such organization, I do not think that we could have developed such an advanced society (Other class, 3/4/09-3/6/09). In my research methods class, my professor mentioned that what made culture and social structure possible was surplus, which freed a small amount of people from rudimentary work and allowed them to bring society forward (Other class, 3/4/09-3/6/09). Without human organization, everyone would be too busy just trying to survive instead of inventing things like medicine (Other class, 3/4/09-3/6/09). Moreover, Khaldun’s claims are pretty accurate (Khaldun, 45-46). After all, the human hand is not very effective against a tiger’s teeth and claws. Moreover, one person is not very effective at fighting a group of equally armed people (Khaldun, 45-46).
I mostly agree with Khaldun’s theory on how empires become strong and then decay (Khaldun, 123-142). The description given throughout the book, particularly on pages 141-142, sounds a lot like a modern theory that is still taught in political classes today (Kegley, 94-95; Khaldun, 105-142). It is known as the “long cycle theory” (Kegley, 94). This model has been applied to many famous and infamous empires such as Spain in the 1500s, France under Napoleon Bonaparte, the Axis powers during World War II, and even the United States today (Kegley, 95). Though a war, a dynasty, or “hegemon”, as it is called in this context, establishes its dominance through a war that caused a previous empire to lose its power (Kegley, 94). The hegemon then consolidates its power (Kegley, 94). However, this empire eventually begins decaying and a new power rises to challenge the old order (Kegley, 94). This leads to another major war in which the hegemon is normally defeated and a new world order arises (Kegley, 94).
While the modern “long cycle” theory does not address issues such as group feeling and desert toughness (Khaldun, 123-142; Kegley, 94), I think that these concepts are important as well and serve to answer the question of why empires fall. The U.S.’s rise to power is a good example (Kegley, 95-124). World War II is probably one of the defining moments where the U.S. became a major world power (Kegley, 95). Our country was attacked by Japan (Frankel). This brought about a strong feeling of group feeling in a sense; people were so outraged about the attack they many people volunteered to fight against the Axis powers (Frankel). Some people even committed suicide because they could not join the military (Frankel). Tom Brokaw even referred to the people who were young adults during World War II as “the greatest generation” (Boston Globe). While “group feeling” was really nationality in this case, people were still willing to die to preserve the country, which is basically, at its core, what makes group feeling so important (Frankel; Khaldun, 123). Out of this war emerged a bipolar system with Russia and the United States as the major world powers (Kegley, 108). The U.S. still is the world’s major power today (Kegley, 118-120). On the other hand, I believe that the U.S. is now weakening as the sole “dynasty” in the world. When it comes to the wars the U.S. is currently fighting, we do not have the same kind of group solidarity we had during World War II and many people do not even think that we should be in some of the wars we are currently in (Page). Moreover, my generation is immersed in luxury, which eventually leads to decay according to Khaldun (Khaldun 137-142). Until recently, our economy was doing very well. People in the U.S. are generally used to a sedentary lifestyle with a stable job and decent paycheck, and take for granted many luxuries for granted such as television, computers, and ipods. While I disagree that the rule of law makes society weak as Khaldun believed (Khaldun, 95-96), I think that we have lost our group feeling and have become cowardly in comparison with “the greatest generation” (Khaldun, 137). I do not believe that my generation would die for a cause as our predecessors who fought in World War II would. After all, why would we want to give our stable life of luxury up to endure the rigors of warfare? I am guilty of this mindset myself.
I agree for the most part with Khaldun’s view that external circumstances such as culture influence a human being (Khaldun, 94). While I believe that genetics can play a part in a person’s character and are a driving force behind some of peoples’ predispositions, I agree with Khaldun’s proposition that “the soul in its first natural state of creation is ready to accept whatever good or evil may arrive and leave an imprint upon it” (Khaldun, 94). After all, socialization is a powerful force. In my own life, my past experiences have made a major impact on what kind of person I am today. My parents, church, and private schools taught me Christianity throughout my life and I have become a Christian. If I were raised in a Muslim family, I would have probably become a Muslim. If I were raised without being introduced to religion, I probably would not have any religious beliefs. The same applies to my political ideology. If I were born into a stone-age society, I would be different than I am in our current, sedentary society. I would hunt for my own food and probably think that the earth was flat.
When it comes to injustice, I also agree with Khaldun (Khaldun, 238-242). I believe it is unjust to take away a person’s property, especially without compensation, and to distribute it to people who are well liked by the rulers (Khaldun, 238-239). Our own society considered this injustice to be so important that there is a constitutional amendment outlawing the practice (U.S. Constitution). Moreover, I also believe forcing people to buy certain goods at high prices they cannot afford where they have to resell them at a low price is unjust (Khaldun, 241). In this sense, I agree that injustice can ruin a dynasty (Khaldun, 238-242). After all, that practice reminds me of the housing market, which is a major part of the economic crisis we are in right now (Cornett). After all, banks gave people loans they could not afford, and as a result, many people lost their homes (Cornett). Now the banks themselves are in trouble and looking to the government for support (Norris).
Overall, Ibn Khaldun covered a large amount of issues in his book, the Muqaddimah (Khaldun, 5-301). He laid out his views of history, the world, the necessity of social organization, differences between desert and sedentary cultures, the emergence and decay of empires, justice, ways of making a living, and human development (Khaldun, 5-301). I find his book to be extremely interesting. In particular, I am astonished by his very advanced view of the world (Khaldun, 45-69) and even the fact that he accurately predicted the approximate circumference of the earth (Khaldun, 49). While I disagree with his views on why certain races of people were inferior to others (Khaldun, 48-54), I agree that culture and the environment effect how a person develops (Khaldun, 94). I think Khaldun is correct that human cooperation and organization is necessary for survival (Khaldun, 45-46; Other class, 3/4/09-3/6/09). I agree with his view on how empires rose and fell and even found it to be more descriptive than a similar theory I learned in an international politics class, since that class did not cover concepts such as luxury and group feeling (Kegley, 94-95; Khaldun, 123-142). Much of what was described in his theory reminds me of what has been going on in the U.S. since World War II (Kegley, 94-95; Page; Frankel). Finally, I like Khaldun’s view of injustice (Khaldun, 238-242). In particular, I like what he said about how the rich and make people buy stuff at high prices that they cannot afford where they have to resell them at lower prices (Khaldun, 241). This reminds me of the economic crisis we are currently in (Cornett).
So...to go through it. Yeah, as you can tell, even at this point, I liked relatively scientific approaches to the world rather than whatever the F Rousseau was doing (even if he ended up being right on the concept of property).
Yeah, Khaldun was racist, he had this idea that brownish skin people were superior because they were advanced, while black Africans and white Europeans were dumb due to the climate being too hot or cold. I mean, it's kinda funny, any culture that dominates thinks they're the best. Nowadays there's a lot of whites who think they're the superior culture. Meanwhile, skin is just skin, a lot of it is just the spawn lottery in this game of civ. Btw, the reason Africa hasn't had strong civilizations in recent centuries is in part due to western imperialism, and in part due to the fact that the geography is just too hostile to human development. I mean, I've watched a lot of those real life lore videos on how geography makes or breaks countries, AND I've literally played civ on a world map. And yeah, best spawning spots on the planet are north America and northern Eurasia (basically where Russia is, but you need to control Europe and China to make it work). Whereas a lot of the less successful places just have rough geography that screws them over. It's not the people themselves, and I'd argue even culture has little to do with success. It's the geography. US has the best and is only rivaled by a combined Russia/China/Europe. And that's why the world is as it is today.
On human organization. YES, it's human development and organization that makes society advance. And economic surplus can free people from labor, which could advance society further in its own ways. Which is why it baffles me we continue to work and produce more and more surplus while keeping people chained to their jobs. It's nonsensical to me. We should be freeing people from a lifetime of labor. And society would be better off for it.
On long cycle theory, I have more mixed thoughts these days. It's basically the whole "strong men create good times, good times create weak men, weak men create hard times, hard times create strong men" argument. He argues luxury is bad and living like a bedouin who lives in the desert makes you tough and resilient. I can see an argument for that, but eh....we're both luxurious and the strongest military on the planet. Even other rivals have their own problems. China is a paper tiger, their soldiers dont wanna fight to my knowledge. Russia's meatgrinder is held together by pure repression and it's demographically killing the nation long term. At the same time, we kinda are weak. And I kinda cringe at my whole "this generation would never storm normandy" take. Our generation and the one before me wouldn't even turn the heat down come winter in the 1970s, or get vaccinated today and sit on the couch for a year collecting paychecks. We are an entitled society, and to some extent, I do fear that we are seeing the rise of that "destroyer" generation with late gen Z.
The human nature thing is a big reversal from my stance as a fundamentalist Christian. Back then, human nature was driven by sin and external factors were irrelevant. But that's what college does to you. it teaches you things and backs up its arguments.
On property, I have evolved a lot though. I'm fine with redistribution of property. It beats the legal screwery that comes from an ironclad belief in property as a natural right, which just enslaves humanity to have to work for the wealthy forever. We also have a massive economic surplus even someone like Khaldun couldn't possibly imagine. So....again, different ideologies for different times. Khaldun's works made sense in the middle ages, but today? yeah, I think we can do better.
I was kinda dead on with the housing crisis, but that's also why I've evolved to be so progressive on property. This system doesn't work for most, it works for the wealthy. And operating from that, I'm fine with my own ideas. After all, my ideas are created for the times I live in, and intended to solve the problems of today. As I said, I kinda have a problem with people reading old books and making them their entire ideology. The books make sense for the time they're designed for, but not necessarily for the modern era. We have to figure out how we wish to live today.
So with that said, Ibn Khaldun, interesting guy. Some stuff holds up, some doesn't, but that's to be expected from some Muslim philosopher from the middle ages.
No comments:
Post a Comment