Renaissance in terms of the Rise and Fall of Humanism

[Byzan]

I'm wondering if EUIV will expand more into the Renaissance - the rise of the Arts, Roman and Greek plays, and (of course) the rise of Humanism. However ending with the beginning of the Protestant Reformation and the start of religious wars that'd destroy Europe and what was the Best-Age Europe ever entered that was actually genuinely interested in humanity.

Maybe some increased revolt risk against Monarchies or countries who are at war, while not leading to any Revolutions to Republicanism it'd merely just make the population more agitated at the State as well as those who are under a Republic being more aggressive against the occupation by a Monarchy. (Machiavellian Yes. But EUIV is practically "Machiavelli the Video game"..)

If not to be implemented, how are your thoughts on it?

 

[Sun_Wu]

I think there should be an event showing the transformation of slavery from "well they are heathens" to "black people are racially inferior" because that was totally a case of the white man becoming more civilised.

 

[wattsnic000]

After the renaissance, humanism didnt just vanish, it did quite the opposite. Humanistic ideals were further expanded during the reformation, age of religious wars, enlightenment, and of course post treaty of versailles. What we get today is a core value system that has its very roots in humanism.

 

[wattsnic000]

I think there should be an event showing the transformation of slavery from "well they are heathens" to "black people are racially inferior" because that was totally a case of the white man becoming more civilised.

LOL, social darwinism!

 

[Sun_Wu]

After the renaissance, humanism didnt just vanish, it did quite the opposite. Humanistic ideals were further expanded during the reformation, age of religious wars, enlightenment, and of course post treaty of versailles. What we get today is a core value system that has its very roots in humanism.

Yeah, it did get better, like Luther basically wrote a The Holocaust for Dummies book and people fled demitheocracies to found their own theocracies, religious intolerance increase, science "proved" blacks were racially inferior to whites ushering a new level of "civilisation". Brutal subjugation of the "subhumans" of the dark continent was just icing on the cake.



note, I've been taught that "scare quotes" imply that the word is being used differently than normal

LOL, social darwinism!

inorite? The Europeans were just sooo civilised.

 

[Fishman786]

This thread: I do not understand it.

1. What is 'Humanism' and why does it matter in a game?

2. What does the origin of racism have to do with it?

3. What does 'social darwinism' have to do with the origin of racism?

 

[wattsnic000]

Yeah, it did get better, like Luther basically wrote a The Holocaust for Dummies book and people fled demitheocracies to found their own theocracies, religious intolerance increase, science "proved" blacks were racially inferior to whites ushering a new level of "civilisation". Brutal subjugation of the "subhumans" of the dark continent was just icing on the cake.

im not going to argue with you, im just going to give you some links to some reading you should do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edict_of_Nantes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonic_Code

I have these comments:

Luther was an anti-semite, same as 99% of the European population in the 16th century.

religious intolerance gradually decreased 17th, 18th, and 19th century. intolerance on the jewish communities persisted however, until the guilt brought on europe by the holocaust.

i wouldnt call social darwinism a scientific idea, more like a racist philosophy taken up up by old dead rich guys, in their quest to subjugate the world outside of europe.

None of these things change the fact that humanism is at the core of our beliefs today.

 

[Ivashanko]

Yeah, it did get better, like Luther basically wrote a The Holocaust for Dummies book and people fled demitheocracies to found their own theocracies, religious intolerance increase, science "proved" blacks were racially inferior to whites ushering a new level of "civilisation". Brutal subjugation of the "subhumans" of the dark continent was just icing on the cake.

Not to be offensive, but you don't really know what you are talking about. I could suggest a few books for you if you want to learn more about the period, though.

 

[wattsnic000]

This thread: I do not understand it.

1. What is 'Humanism' and why does it matter in a game?

3. What does 'social darwinism' have to do with the origin of racism?

1:-.-
o.o
0.0

3: it doesnt have anything to with it, it just gave already racist people justification for being racist.

 

[Sun_Wu]

im not going to argue with you, im just going to give you some links to some reading you should do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edict_of_Nantes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonic_Code

I have these comments:

Luther was an anti-semite, same as 99% of the European population in the 16th century.

religious intolerance gradually decreased 17th, 18th, and 19th century. intolerance on the jewish communities persisted however, until the guilt brought on europe by the holocaust.

i wouldnt call social darwinism a scientific idea, more like a racist philosophy taken up up by old dead rich guys, in their quest to subjugate the world outside of europe.

None of these things change the fact that humanism is at the core of our beliefs today.

Edict of Nantes came after 34 years of civil war, it wasn't tolerance so much as an attempt to stop France from killing itself.

The French were only able to discuss those concepts because of the eternality of the French monarchy, if they knew what was coming (the French Revolution) I'm not sure they would have gone forward with their ideas.

The Napoleonic Code was necessary for unifying France and being able to go on a conquering spree.

Have you read Von den Jüden und jren Lügen especially chapter 15? If the Holocaust had a how to guide that book would be it.

And so the Europeans were most wonderful to the Jews and helped displace Palestinians from their land, I must admit the Present absentee law devised by the Israelis is one of the most ingenious legal land grabs ever.

Eugenics to refer to killing of the disabled and retard is actually perfectly rational if one does not include people having intrinsic worth as an axiom.

So that's why the world is going to Hell in a hand basket.

 

[wattsnic000]

Edict of Nantes came after 34 years of civil war, it wasn't tolerance so much as an attempt to stop France from killing itself.

The French were only able to discuss those concepts because of the eternality of the French monarchy, if they knew what was coming (the French Revolution) I'm not sure they would have gone forward with their ideas.

The Napoleonic Code was necessary for unifying France and being able to go on a conquering spree.

Have you read Von den Jüden und jren Lügen especially chapter 15? If the Holocaust had a how to guide that book would be it.

And so the Europeans were most wonderful to the Jews and helped displace Palestinians from their land, I must admit the Present absentee law devised by the Israelis is one of the most ingenious legal land grabs ever.

Eugenics to refer to killing of the disabled and retard is actually perfectly rational if one does not include people having intrinsic worth as an axiom.

So that's why the world is going to Hell in a hand basket.

what exactly are you trying to argue, aside from just arguing for the fun of it?

Humanist values are at the core of todays beliefs, if you cant accept that, or just dont know what that means, look around you.

the importance of education for the betterment of humanity: humanist ideal
secularism: humanist ideal
individualism: humanist ideal
pride in one's heritage: humanist ideal

but i'll address your last comment:

"Edict of Nantes came after 34 years of civil war, it wasn't tolerance so much as an attempt to stop France from killing itself."-
you forget that it was also passed by huguenot (protestant, case you didnt know) king henry iv. The document stopped the persecution of protestants in france, until its revocation by louis xiv.

"The French were only able to discuss those concepts because of the eternality of the French monarchy, if they knew what was coming (the French Revolution) I'm not sure they would have gone forward with their ideas."-
french revolution had nothing to do with religion, derp derp, and double derp de derp. sorry, didnt see the point of you adding that.

"The Napoleonic Code was necessary for unifying France and being able to go on a conquering spree."-
much deeper than that im afraid. the code applied to all demesnes held by the french empire, which was damn near all of it by 1810. the core principals of the code exist today in almost every continental eurpean government. I really dont want to explain to you what the code did, but i'll just make it simple for you, and easier for me: the code is another document that has its roots in humanism.

"Have you read Von den Jüden und jren Lügen especially chapter 15? If the Holocaust had a how to guide that book would be it."-
didnt i just get done telling you that yes, i understand that europeans (including luther) hated jews? just a fun fact for you, hitler's main inspiration for instigating the holocaust wasnt luther, it was instead a mix of deep personal resentment of the jews, and european general acceptance intolerance against jews.

"And so the Europeans were most wonderful to the Jews and helped displace Palestinians from their land, I must admit the Present absentee law devised by the Israelis is one of the most ingenious legal land grabs ever."-
k, already knew that. thanks for the info. another problem for another discussion.

"Eugenics to refer to killing of the disabled and retard is actually perfectly rational if one does not include people having intrinsic worth as an axiom."-
im not talking about eugenics, just stop.





to start you off, i recommend some popular history best sellers written by amateur historians. once you've delved into that a bit, and have the basic ground work, i'd recommend cambridge's modern history series of 14 volumes.

there, not wasting any more time on you. instead, im going to waste my time playing just cause 2, (got it 3 bucks on steam during sale

 

[Autonomous]

1. What is 'Humanism' and why does it matter in a game?

+2 tolerance to heathens, brah.

 

[Straigthtsilver]

Gah, Humanism *shiver*

I'll keep my electoral monarchies and religion, thank you very much. I suppose it's just more pesky Jacobins to vanquish.

 

[Sun_Wu]

what exactly are you trying to argue, aside from just arguing for the fun of it?

Humanist values are at the core of todays beliefs, if you cant accept that, or just dont know what that means, look around you.

the importance of education for the betterment of humanity: humanist ideal
secularism: humanist ideal
individualism: humanist ideal
pride in one's heritage: humanist ideal

but i'll address your last comment:

"Edict of Nantes came after 34 years of civil war, it wasn't tolerance so much as an attempt to stop France from killing itself."-
you forget that it was also passed by huguenot (protestant, case you didnt know) king henry iv. The document stopped the persecution of protestants in france, until its revocation by louis xiv.

"The French were only able to discuss those concepts because of the eternality of the French monarchy, if they knew what was coming (the French Revolution) I'm not sure they would have gone forward with their ideas."-
french revolution had nothing to do with religion, derp derp, and double derp de derp. sorry, didnt see the point of you adding that.

"The Napoleonic Code was necessary for unifying France and being able to go on a conquering spree."-
much deeper than that im afraid. the code applied to all demesnes held by the french empire, which was damn near all of it by 1810. the core principals of the code exist today in almost every continental eurpean government. I really dont want to explain to you what the code did, but i'll just make it simple for you, and easier for me: the code is another document that has its roots in humanism.

"Have you read Von den Jüden und jren Lügen especially chapter 15? If the Holocaust had a how to guide that book would be it."-
didnt i just get done telling you that yes, i understand that europeans (including luther) hated jews? just a fun fact for you, hitler's main inspiration for instigating the holocaust wasnt luther, it was instead a mix of deep personal resentment of the jews, and european general acceptance intolerance against jews.

"And so the Europeans were most wonderful to the Jews and helped displace Palestinians from their land, I must admit the Present absentee law devised by the Israelis is one of the most ingenious legal land grabs ever."-
k, already knew that. thanks for the info. another problem for another discussion.

"Eugenics to refer to killing of the disabled and retard is actually perfectly rational if one does not include people having intrinsic worth as an axiom."-
im not talking about eugenics, just stop.



to start you off, i recommend some popular history best sellers written by amateur historians. once you've delved into that a bit, and have the basic ground work, i'd recommend cambridge's modern history series of 14 volumes.

there, not wasting any more time on you. instead, im going to waste my time playing just cause 2, (got it 3 bucks on steam during sale

Secularism: overrated
Individualism: overrated, the flip side to independence is loneliness and libertine culture is rotting out the heart of the Western world making it weak.
Pride in one's heritage: frequently taken too extreme


Well, a Huguenot (Reformed not Protestant actually) who seemed to have decided Paris was worth a Mass AKA reverting. The only alternative to the Edict of Nantes was more death and destruction, France was simply too worn out to carry on.

That was actually in regard to the Age of Enlightenment link.

I know exactly what the Napoleonic Code is, by the way it is from 1804 not 1810.

Where one get's their ideas and where one derives one motivations are not necessarily linked.

Social Darwinism inevitably results in incidental eugenics.

 

[Sir Leningrad]

What they are just saying is that humanism and illustration have their high momentum in the timeframe in wich the game is based. Therefore, they should be represented in it because of it's effects as a psychological reactive. It really doesn't matter if you like those ideas or whether they are effective or not. That doesn't matter at all because it's just how history it is, independently of one's ideology or feelings.

And by the way the fact that somebody who defends certain humanist ideals is agains some others just shows the tipical human moral duplicity, it doesn't change the meaning of humanism and the athenticity of it's values. Just look at Ghandi, pacifist and defending his abuse of her own wife. So if we go arround saying that those who don't completely embrace a concrete ideology in any possible way or intepretation aren't proponents of it, it will mean that absolutely nobody embraces any ideology at all, wich is just silly.

Also, a good example of humanist values is Bartolomé de las Casas. He fought for the indigenous rights to be treated like any one else under the spanish king and finally won, leading to a law giving them the same rights as other subjects of the spanish crown. Of course by that time many in the caribbean where exterminated, and the system of encomiendas meant it was difficult that it was well applied everywhere in the colonies, but nevertheless it became a victory with good and worthy results.

His ideas, by the way, were partially rooted in the "derecho de gentes", or people's rights, also known as "ius gentium", and proponed by Francisco de Vitoria at those times. So there really was people that cared for the others and fought for their ideas, truly humanist ideas.

 

[systemlvl]

Secularism: overrated
Individualism: overrated, the flip side to independence is loneliness and libertine culture is rotting out the heart of the Western world making it weak.
Pride in one's heritage: frequently taken too extreme


Well, a Huguenot (Reformed not Protestant actually) who seemed to have decided Paris was worth a Mass AKA reverting. The only alternative to the Edict of Nantes was more death and destruction, France was simply too worn out to carry on.

That was actually in regard to the Age of Enlightenment link.

I know exactly what the Napoleonic Code is, by the way it is from 1804 not 1810.

Where one get's their ideas and where one derives one motivations are not necessarily linked.

Social Darwinism inevitably results in incidental eugenics.

This is not a discussion of your opinion on things that happened in history, but whether they should have a (bigger) place in the game - and if so, how. Humanism was one stream of thought during the renaissance, a thing that's pointless to argue against. If you'd like to lobby for more pogroms or 19th century socialdarwinism, early 20th century eugenics to be included in the game you can consider starting your own topic. Personally I wouldn't see the benefit in doing so, however, as Paradox understandably is known to be strict on things to do with ethnic cleansing and racism.

If one is to boil humanism down to effects on the game, I'd say the effects would be related to education and religious thought and tolerance. In turn this could give first and foremost tech bonuses, somewhat more instability and a slight increase in tolerance to heathens and heretics. It should also be in conflict with the official catholic doctrine (while not necessarily being protestant), if the counter-reformation doesn't take a different turn than it did historically.

 

[Meanmanturbo]

what exactly are you trying to argue, aside from just arguing for the fun of it?

Oh, he's just bitter about the Eurocentrism and that China will not get enough luv this time around either

 

[Closet Skeleton]

Social Darwinism inevitably results in incidental eugenics.

Social Darwinism and Eugenics are completely different.

Social Darwinism is an ideology that has nothing to do with anyone called Darwin and pre-dates the Origin of Species. It incorporated Darwin inspired ideas, but naming it 'Darwinian' was more of an attempt to discredit Darwin by associating him with Nazism. The term 'survival of the fittest' is the main idea of Social Darwinism, and actually entered Darwinian discourse from the works of Herbert Spencer (Darwin used 'natural selection', a less provocative but also more accurate term). Social Darwinism attempts to apply the laws of nature to human society. A social Darwinist would attempt to create a society based on competition where only the 'fittest' survive.

Eugenics is the deliberate shaping of the human gene pool through interventionist means. It doesn't have to involve murder at all, though trying to do it without at least sterilisation would be near impossible. It is basically treating humanity the same way farmers have treated domesticated animals for millennia. There's no such thing as 'incidental eugenics'. Changes in the gene pool are not eugenics, eugenics is only eugenics if it is deliberate.

While both Eugenics and Social Darwinism can't be talked about without going into modern evolutionary biology and both were practised to a degree by the Nazis, they are in fact opposed since Eugenics requires the direct intervention of a government to remove certain individuals from the gene pool and Social Darwinism requires a laissez fair government that encourages competition and allows 'the weak' to die but does not attempt to select the weak directly. The fact that these two doctrines often went hand in hand is less to do with the fact that they naturally complement each other (which they do not) but more due to the ability of those who hold irrational beliefs to hold contradictory beliefs and fail to see the logical problem.

Personally I wouldn't see the benefit in doing so, however, as Paradox understandably is known to be strict on things to do with ethnic cleansing and racism.

Except when it came to EU3's euphemistic 'settlement policy' and 'culture penalty'.

 

[Mr. Capiatlist]

Okay everyone just stop right there. Consider this thread closed.

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

I think there should be an event showing the transformation of slavery from "well they are heathens" to "black people are racially inferior" because that was totally a case of the white man becoming more civilised.

Don't start flame-wars !