U
Upgrade25
Guest
Seems Thoroflr and Rhubarb are right… Guess we did plagiarize… 
- Status
U
Upgrade25
Guest
Its a shame. I thought we Catholic had something great going.
R
Rhubarb
Guest
I don’t understand your sentiment at all. All learning is built on foundational principles. Does the fact that the Muslim middle ages were more advanced in some areas negate or take away from Catholic thinking?
D
dmar198
Guest
Rhubarb and Thoroflr didn’t say Catholics plagiarized Muslims. They just said that Some Muslim societies were temporarily more advanced than most Catholic societies in terms of science, wealth, and philosophical research. Rhubarb noted that this was largely because of things that couldn’t be helped. Barbarian invasions wreaked havoc in Catholic countries and made it very hard to develop. He also noted that there were several exceptions, especially Byzantium and some monastic communities. There were areas of very advanced knowledge and wealth in Catholic europe during the so-called “Muslim Golden Age,” and both Thoroflr and Rhubarb know that.Seems Thoroflr and Rhubarb are right… Guess we did plagiarize…
Thoroflr mentioned that many Greek writings “came to Christian Europe by way of the Muslims” – that’s not a claim of plagiarism. If someone translates Aristotle into English or Latin, and then someone who speaks that language quotes that translation, that’s not plagiarism. The person quoting it just needs to cite his or her sources. Thomas Aquinas does a good job of citing his sources, and was not a plagiarist. He’s just one example.
Thoroflr also said Muslims were “ahead of Christian Europe in astronomy [and] navigation.” First, Thoroflr’s comments here do not imply that Catholics plagiarized Muslims. Second, I don’t know how accurate his sentence is, since I am aware of several Catholic astronomers who made remarkable discoveries during that time (such as St. Bede the Venerable), and there were several Catholic navigators who made important discoveries that Muslims had not made yet. At least to my knowledge, no Muslim had yet been to North America in the 900s, but Catholic norsemen already had a colony on Greenland (which is part of North America) and a church there with a Catholic bishop in union with the pope. The Catholic norsemen’s Greenland colony lasted for over 400 years, and was only possible because of their navigational discoveries. Their geographical discoveries were also made known to other parts of europe, because when the bishop in Greenland died, a successor was sent over from mainland europe. Celtic Catholics were also known for expanding navigational knowledge, and made important expeditions to Iceland and other areas. I think some parts of Catholic europe were ahead of most Muslim societies in important areas.
Thoroflr also noted: “Thomas Aquinas…relied on the Arabic works of Averroes (i.e. Ibn Rushd) translated into Latin.”
It was right after this comment that you said “Guess we did plagiarize.” But that’s not evidence of plagiarism, and he didn’t say it is. Plagiarism is when you steal someone else’s ideas and pass them off as your own. Thomas Aquinas cited his sources properly and made it known when he was giving his own ideas and when he was giving someone else’s. So he was not plagiarizing.
Also, your original question was whether Catholic societies were intellectually barren until they encountered Muslim societies. Rhubarb and Thoroflr both know the answer to that is No, and they will tell you quite honestly that it’s not true if you ask them. They are both quite aware that Muslim societies had Some advantages over most Catholic societies, but both of them also know that this didn’t imply that Catholic culture was inherently inferior. The factors that caused this situation were different from that.
I hope this helps. God bless!
F
fisherman_carl
Guest
I would recommend a less biased anti Catholic source to bring a better balance to your learning about history.
For example, Diane Moczar’s, “Seven Lies About Catholic History” (This book actually addresses the concerns you have. She talks about the strong intellectual tradition in the Church even before Aquinas ( who was in the 13th century contrary to above post).
Also, Thomas E. Woods’, " How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization".
(Dispel many myths about the Catholic including outright lies)
Many lies about Catholic Church come from Protestant propaganda.(And a lot of history books were written from Protestant perspective). Some things don’t change. And then also from the ‘enlightenment’ thinkers who were in love with their own time and villified anything before it.
For example, Diane Moczar’s, “Seven Lies About Catholic History” (This book actually addresses the concerns you have. She talks about the strong intellectual tradition in the Church even before Aquinas ( who was in the 13th century contrary to above post).
Also, Thomas E. Woods’, " How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization".
(Dispel many myths about the Catholic including outright lies)
Many lies about Catholic Church come from Protestant propaganda.(And a lot of history books were written from Protestant perspective). Some things don’t change. And then also from the ‘enlightenment’ thinkers who were in love with their own time and villified anything before it.
S
Sarcelle
Guest
Exactly.
Even today, discoveries are being made, people get patents for their new inventions. These discoveries and inventions are based on foundational principles discovered earlier. This does not negate the achievements of today.
I have often seen white supremacists claim that non-white scientists who were able to advance science by building off of scientific discoveries earlier by white scientists do not deserve credit for their work. I am seeing the exact claim here.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
If by Catholic literary tradition you mean philosophy, the Catholic Church sis not plagiarize from the Muslims so much as the Greeks and the Romans. Plato was already know before the Crusades, and Aquinas was kept busy correcting some of the Muslim misunderstandings of Aristotle.
C
columbkille77
Guest
Here is my very simple answer from lots of reading (albeit mostly from years ago, so the details are fuzzy):
During certain periods history, certain Muslim communities were more advanced than certain Christian communities. For example, for a brief period Cordoba was the largest city in Western Europe. (Even then, Constantinople was much larger). Persia was also very advanced and sophisticated for a time (but, to be honest, the height of Persian civilization was prior to its conquest by Islam and it thereafter declined).
Certain historians like to emphasize these periods in particular. When I am in a charitable mood, I think that the purpose is to correct the misconception that the Christians were always the advanced ones and the Muslims were always the backwards ones, which is definitely not true. When I am in a less charitable mood, I think the purpose is to take Western Civilization (and the Catholic Church in particular) down a peg for political reasons by overemphasizing certain facts and underemphasizing others (and in the process distorting history). What is really going on probably depends on the historian and the context.
Please keep in mind as you go through your studies that the “enlighted” politically correct thing to do in our current culture is for white western people to insult their own civilization / ancestors and praise the civilization / ancestors of others. This is very bizarre in the context of world history – Thai children are not taught to hate Thai civilization, Japanese children are not taught to hate Japanese civilization, but there is an identifiable movement of people that are basically trying to teach white western children to hate their own civilization, basically. There are lots of reasons for this, some good (trying to be inclusive by recognizing the contributions of other peoples), some bad (trying to undermine traditional sources of authority for political reasons), but you need to read widely and take what you read with a grain of salt. Don’t instinctively oppose anything you find objectionable – it may be accurate, or at least mostly accurate – but also try to find and read the other side. Often these controversial historical events were more complex than they first appear and you are being taught part of the story, but not the whole thing.
I should add that in my opinion this political movement (and also the rise of secularization in the West) really kicked off in the aftermath of World War 1. Prior to WW1, the European elite believed they had created some of the finest civilizations in the history of the world, and they were right. After WW1 (and even moreso after WW2, which was basically a rehash of WW1), they still had some of the finest civilizations in the history of the world, but they no longer believed it. They lost confidence in themselves. Since then we have largely stopped believing in Christianity (our founding faith), stopped having kids and have piled on debt. All unsustainable trends. Who knows if Europe, in its current form, will ever really recover from these terrible tragedies.
May you live in interesting times…
During certain periods history, certain Muslim communities were more advanced than certain Christian communities. For example, for a brief period Cordoba was the largest city in Western Europe. (Even then, Constantinople was much larger). Persia was also very advanced and sophisticated for a time (but, to be honest, the height of Persian civilization was prior to its conquest by Islam and it thereafter declined).
Certain historians like to emphasize these periods in particular. When I am in a charitable mood, I think that the purpose is to correct the misconception that the Christians were always the advanced ones and the Muslims were always the backwards ones, which is definitely not true. When I am in a less charitable mood, I think the purpose is to take Western Civilization (and the Catholic Church in particular) down a peg for political reasons by overemphasizing certain facts and underemphasizing others (and in the process distorting history). What is really going on probably depends on the historian and the context.
Please keep in mind as you go through your studies that the “enlighted” politically correct thing to do in our current culture is for white western people to insult their own civilization / ancestors and praise the civilization / ancestors of others. This is very bizarre in the context of world history – Thai children are not taught to hate Thai civilization, Japanese children are not taught to hate Japanese civilization, but there is an identifiable movement of people that are basically trying to teach white western children to hate their own civilization, basically. There are lots of reasons for this, some good (trying to be inclusive by recognizing the contributions of other peoples), some bad (trying to undermine traditional sources of authority for political reasons), but you need to read widely and take what you read with a grain of salt. Don’t instinctively oppose anything you find objectionable – it may be accurate, or at least mostly accurate – but also try to find and read the other side. Often these controversial historical events were more complex than they first appear and you are being taught part of the story, but not the whole thing.
I should add that in my opinion this political movement (and also the rise of secularization in the West) really kicked off in the aftermath of World War 1. Prior to WW1, the European elite believed they had created some of the finest civilizations in the history of the world, and they were right. After WW1 (and even moreso after WW2, which was basically a rehash of WW1), they still had some of the finest civilizations in the history of the world, but they no longer believed it. They lost confidence in themselves. Since then we have largely stopped believing in Christianity (our founding faith), stopped having kids and have piled on debt. All unsustainable trends. Who knows if Europe, in its current form, will ever really recover from these terrible tragedies.
May you live in interesting times…
- Status