Schwan

Is the gothic arch or a string instrument quartet a rational element of the western culture?

This is one of the questions from our professor that we could take to him about in order to get a passing grade, but I don’t think anyone had a go with it. I'm really curious about possible answers for this. The "rational element" part is of course related to the philosophical current present by, amongst others, Plato, Descartes, Spinoza, G.W. Leibniz, Kant and Hegel, although the last two did do it in a slightly different form.

So, fire away, I'd like to hear what you have to say about this
.

rogue49

I'm sorry, I'm usually better with words, but...
WTF?!

Perhaps you provide a little more explaination or context
behind the thought or conversation that brought about this question.

Because otherwise, it makes no sense.

duckznutz

Well I dont know what you mean by 'rational element' . . . but the gothic arch was an evolution of the Roman Arch and could carry greater loads, hence wider and higher spans . . . the fying buttress then developed to take out the lateral forces. old technology now though . . . . . . . no-one builds gothic arches any more, that was a hundred years ago and more . . . . nowadays its all steel and reinforced concrete . . . . . although its true that the Romans had reinforced concrete . . . . . . I think I know what your professor had in mind when he framed the question but like all professors they could do with spending 5 minutes in the real world! (no offence).

PS : String Quartets went out around the same time as the gothic arch! Replace string quartet with Eminem MP3 if you want to be current . . . just how old was this professor!?!

__________________
Where your talents and the needs of the world cross . . there lies your vocation.

Schwan

Well, I have no idea what he meant, that's the whole point . As for the context... Well, the context was, more or less, the history of philosophy, starting from the ancient Greek and ending all the way in the mid XX century. I think it's more of a theoretical construct, then a technical question about modern construction methods .

Anyhow, "rational", as in something, that doesn't come from the senses, but from the mind. Rational would also mean that it's something that can't be the product of a revelation or some other mystical process, but it's something that can be easily traced to the mind and has nothing to do with intuition.

So perhaps what he meant is that the arc and the quintet are something specific to the western culture, that they are a product of a line of thought that went on for several thousand years and this is the end product, and that they couldn't be replicated in a different, independent culture? It's a wild shot, and a best one I could come up with.

Not that old, really, though he was a total egg head. I don't think he had much contact with reality, not on daily basis.

Lebell

It seems that much of this discussion will revolve around the meaning of "rational element" (I note it is not "rational development").

So by the definition you've provided of "rational", then yes, both are features or "elements" of western society that are products of developing thought (they didn't just 'spring' out of nowhere).

Of course, by this reasoning, anything created by the mind of man and used in Western civilization is a "rational element".

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

twotimesadingo

Well, I have yet to take a philosophy class in college, but I'll take a stab. Forgive me if its less than completely fleshed out, as I must admit that I only recognize perhaps half of the names discussed in your class, Schwan...

Anyway, I assume your class began Soc/Plato/Aristotle. I lump them together because with my basic knowledge of philosophy and ancient world history, they really studied and taught much the same things.

Aristotle especially believed that there were basic tenets that ordered the universe. He once stood on a beach to watch a ship disappear, and noted that the prow and sails disappeared before the poopdeck and stern. This set him to meditiating on the shape of the earth, questioning the validity of the "cubic earth" theory, etc. Long story short, he questioned the structure of the universe.

Same basic time frame (I believe), Euclid propose the first basic parameters of geometry. BAM - physics is born.

Fast forward to Descartes. Descartes is a lazy, arrogant bitch. Decides mathematics is much too difficult and time consuming, theorizes that by assigning numbers graphical points, mathematics becomes more efficient and capable of handling theoretical problems. Modern geometry born. Students around the world riot.

In essence, this quick answer is leaning toward the gothic arch as being a more rational product of the human mind.
Aristotle's theory of the earth's curvature was not an epiphany; it was a conclusion arrived at after observation and hypothesizing.
Likewise, though much of Descartes philosophy was determined by (imo) his lethargy, it was arrived at through rational determination.

Both have to do with geometry and physics, and as has been mentioned, the gothic arch was designed to handle heavier loads.

Short and sweet, with a notable lack of elaboration and support, but I'm at work.

__________________
I'll be the one to protect you from your enemies and all your demons.
I'll be the one to protect you from a will to survive and voice of reason.
I'll be the one to protect you from your enemies and your choices, son.
They're one and the same I must isolate you, isolate and save you from yourself."
- A Perfect Circle

Schwan

I think you guys are heading in the right direction. I think we’re half done though, because the question we need to answer is: could the gothic arch or the string quartet be developed by a different culture, or is it something absolutely exclusive and un-repeatable? Depending on the answer, we can get the final answer for the stated problem. If it could be repeated by a different culture, the no, it's not a rational element of a western culture, because a completely unrelated train of thought led to same conclusions as those in our culture, and philosophy says that things don't happen twice without a reason (I guess someone said that somewhere ). So there must be something elese, some kind of ideal floating around, that's available for every culture at a certain point. If, however, it is not possible to replicate it in a different culture, then it's a rational element of our culture, exclusive only to us, because we slaved over it for thousands of years and came to this particular conclusion. There's a high level of randomness involved in the process.

You need to go sci-fi on this if you don’t catch my drift. What if a meteor struck Europe four thousand years ago and created a sea in that place. What if Greece never happened. Would someone else come up with these ideas?

So what wouldn’t be a rationale element of the western culture? Roads. Although they were invented by Romans, they were also built by the Chinese, Egyptian and Aztec.

CSflim

Well now! There's a question that actually makes sense!

I believe that gothic arch most definately would have. It's simply an application of engineering. Plenty of scientific disoveries happen concurrently, so its safe to assume that an even longer development would also have occurred, without its specific circumstances.

__________________

Schwan

So, de facto , your answer to the original question would be "no". There's nothing wrong with it, once you catch the drift.

Slims

If it weren't a rational product of our culture, then we wouldn't have them. Not to say that our culture is rational.

__________________
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill

"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence

QuasiMojo

What if a Metaphor struck Europe for thousand years ago

__________________
AzAbOv ZoBeLoE

jlickx

Cool thread, great ideas.

I googled gothic and roman arches to get a graphic feel of them and came up with some very nice stuff.

Roman =
http://images.google.com/images?hl=e...=Google+Search

Check out the reference to Jesus and underpinnings of a just life!

Gothic =
http://images.google.com/images?hl=e...ch&sa=N&tab=wi

Sinister Minist

If you go with Aristotle, You then have to ask which of these forms is more realative to the concept of the universal form. Which of these is more accepted by the intellect. You could also argue that if your senses lie, in this case your ears lie, then music is nothing but the deception of ones senses, which in turn makes the Gothic Arch the more rational of the two choices. It exists to provide support. The Visual and artistic aspects of the Gothic Arch are secondary to it's rational purpose.
So there is a stab at it from Aristotle's philosophy. This is an awesome question, I will have to think about it some more and see if I can come up with some other ideas.

gwangaii8

uhhhh. WTF? Elements aren't supposed to be rational, they are, like, by-products of any given culture. the gothic arch is rational as a design, not as a cultural element.