15 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

My take is... Having The Truth and being sure of it means those who disagree must - logically, hah! - be wrong.

I expect that very different views are easier to deal with; they are just wrong - no reasoning is required. There is no threat to established beliefs. But addressing a reasoned argument, especially those presented by insiders and based in familiarity with The Truth - requires a reasoned response and threatens established beliefs the way debate with outsiders does not.

Do you mean them???

5 hours ago, Gees said:

As Rome was slowly collapsing, the state religion, Christianity, was slowly picking up the pieces. It is not surprising that the eventual collapse left the Church in charge of the writings/information.

There is some truth in that.
The vacuum left by the fall of Rome was filled by 'fundamental' Christianity.
But some would argue that the Roman Empire never actually fell. The Germanic tribes that invaded and sacked, took up Roman institutions, civilization and culture; essentially becoming 'Roman' themselves.
For a better understanding read E Gibbon's 'The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'; it is 6 volumes, so it will take time, but it is worth the read if you're interested in that time period.

5 hours ago, Gees said:

Yes, Muslims, South Africans, Asians, North and South Americans, actually everyone who was not Christian retained knowledge. What a coincidence?

Not quite.
The Muslims ( and Byzantines )took great care in preserving, translating, and expanding on, Greek writing and thinking.
Much more so than other peoples.

See here Greek contributions to the Islamic world - Wikipedia

7 hours ago, Gees said:

think it had everything to do with the Fall of Rome. I have just spent an hour researching this Fall in Wiki, and it was much worse than I knew. I thought of Rome as a city, or maybe a country, but it was so much more -- it was more like an entire continent that slowly collapsed over hundreds of years

An hour! Well done, you! This is quite the revelation.

7 hours ago, Gees said:

When Obama first ran, I did not vote for him because he was an intelligent young man (maybe a little too young) who understood law, and he had a beautiful intelligent wife, and two adorable little girls. And I did not want that family wrecked, because I know racism still exists, and I live in Michigan.

That's so nice of you, to be looking out for his family for him. Really, I'm inspired and henceforth will not vote for any candidate with adorable children.

14 minutes ago, TheVat said:

An hour! Well done, you! This is quite the revelation.

That's so nice of you, to be looking out for his family for him. Really, I'm inspired and henceforth will not vote for any candidate with adorable children.

Is there some reason you are being a sarcastic ass?

Gee

5 minutes ago, Gees said:

Is there some reason you are being a sarcastic ass?

Gee

No sarcasm whatever. I've often understood vast stretches of history by reading wiki entries for an hour. Just a few days ago, I learned that World War Two killed millions and left entire cities in ruins. Apparently it was quite a mess. I wanted to write a strongly worded letter, asking they not do this sort of thing again!

And I think your protection of career politicians and their families by not voting for them is quite the clever strategy. Especially if they're Black. We don't want Black people attaining political office if they have adorable children and lovely spouses who probably haven't heard of racism.

59 minutes ago, TheVat said:

No sarcasm whatever. I've often understood vast stretches of history by reading wiki entries for an hour. Just a few days ago, I learned that World War Two killed millions and left entire cities in ruins. Apparently it was quite a mess. I wanted to write a strongly worded letter, asking they not do this sort of thing again!

And I think your protection of career politicians and their families by not voting for them is quite the clever strategy. Especially if they're Black. We don't want Black people attaining political office if they have adorable children and lovely spouses who probably haven't heard of racism.

Again, I ask, "Is there some reason you are being a sarcastic ass?"

Gee

10 hours ago, Gees said:

don't think it was quite that simple. Trump saw a truth that no one else was looking at, or that they did not want to admit, and it was about the young American white male. After World War II, the men came home to an unrecognizable life. The women were in the factories and liked making money. No one could use babies as an excuse to keep the Moms at home because the government pushed the idea of bottle feeding to get women into the factories during the war and convinced everyone that nursing was not clean as it could not be sterilized. Then came birth control and state run programs to protect women from angry husbands and to give women and children support. Then came civil rights which gave black workers/students advantages over white workers/students. Then came no fault divorce. Lots of laws. Each one of these things can be good on their own, but when put together, a man has no reason to work, no family that he has power over, no reason to care

This flurry of ludicrous and unsupported assertions about the plight of the white male and the notion that gaining civil rights somehow hobbled the prospects of white males. And that Trump sees a truth that somehow had not been noticed. This kind of race-baiting drivel is the heart and soul of totalitarian ideologies and their leveraging of grievance and xenophobia. And also your notion that the man needs "to have power" over his family, and that this can't be achieved when women have equal rights, compensation and opportunities to pursue careers that interest them...this sounds like sexist trolling of a very stupid variety.

16 hours ago, geordief said:

He then veered into apartheidt territory and Parkinson had to hold his ground since MA was such a convincing act but his views were repellent.

Having been fortunate enough to have met Mr Ali twice, I would inquire what particular views you found repellent? The first time I met him was in Washington DC's Farragut Square in the early 1990's. I had seen him there or nearby a couple times previously but there was always a mob around him, this time he was by himself. I asked to shake his hand because I admired his willingness to go to jail instead of Viet Nam. This led to about a 10-15 minute discussion about ethics, morality, hypocrisy and religion, which except for the latter we mostly agreed upon. Apparently, the discussion left enough of an impression for him to remember having met 4-5 years later. Unfortunately, the second time we didn't get to do much more than greet each other because of the usual entourage and my having a deadline to be somewhere.

@npts2020 " Having been fortunate enough to have met Mr Ali twice, I would inquire what particular views you found repellent? The first time I met him was in Washington DC's Farragut Square in the early 1990's. I had seen him there or nearby a couple times previously but there was always a mob around him, this time he was by himself. I asked to shake his hand because I admired his willingness to go to jail instead of Viet Nam. This led to about a 10-15 minute discussion about ethics, morality, hypocrisy and religion, which except for the latter we mostly agreed upon. Apparently, the discussion left enough of an impression for him to remember having met 4-5 years later. Unfortunately, the second time we didn't get to do much more than greet each other because of the usual entourage and my having a deadline to be somewhere."

At 10.30 minutes into the interview he advocates against intermarriage between the races.

I found that disgusting(and he tried to drag Parkinson into agreeing with him "you have to say that because this is your show")

A very charming man but very dangerous had he continued down that path.Did he?

(I admired him too,but not for that side of him)

Edited September 3Sep 3 by geordief

2 minutes ago, geordief said:

He

At 10.30 minutes into the interview he advocates against intermarriage between the races.

I found that disgusting(and he tried to drag Parkinson into agreeing with him "you have to say that because this is your show")

A very charming man but very dangerous had he continued down that path.Did he?

That is the view of many religious fanatics (of which, much as I liked him, Mr Ali certainly was). I don't recall the topic of interracial marriage ever coming up in our discussion but I have been told his view on it had changed significantly since the 1970's to the point of at least being tolerant and not preaching against it.

6 hours ago, MigL said:

For a better understanding read E Gibbon's 'The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'; it is 6 volumes, so it will take time, but it is worth the read if you're interested in that time period.

So, basically an important book for historians, but in my mind it occupies a bit of a similar space as Charles Darwin's On the origin of species. It is fundamentally accurate but a bit dated. Not a bad read at all, if you keep the historic context in mind (including biases and all), but for learning about the era, there are more modern historians who might want to turn to. One of the things that I found curious was lens through which he characterized the Eastern Roman Empire.

A book that I was itching to read for a while but never found the time is: Kaldellis Anthony, The New Roman Empire: A History of Byzantium, Oxford University Press: New York, 2024. A review that piqued my interest is here: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/02656914241308038h

There was also an interesting book that I skimmed that is a bit like Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel, but much more historically accurate is Kyle Harper, The Fate of Reome: Climate Disease, and the End of an Empire. It is somewhat and more a pop sci book as it doesn't really go into the nuances of historic debate and kind of just the side that best suits the narrative. But in contrast to Diamond's book it doesn't just go off the academic rails. That being said, I only read a few chapters as I was thinking about adding history of pandemics to lecture. That was early 2020...

9 minutes ago, CharonY said:

So, basically an important book for historians, but in my mind it occupies a bit of a similar space as Charles Darwin's On the origin of species. It is fundamentally accurate but a bit dated.

Valid point.
But I find the facts presented are essentially the same, and Gibbon does present a lot of facts.
Interpretations change over time, as sensibilities go in and out of fashion, or different biases evolve.
You can't go wrong if you stick to the facts.

And you have to admit Gibbon is a lot more accurate, in fact and interpretation, than Gees' one hour of research on Wikipedia.

9 minutes ago, MigL said:

You can't go wrong if you stick to the facts.

True, but a big missing piece is archaeology, which wasn't really developed then (beyond graverobbing, perhaps) and Gibbons did fill some gaps with opinions (especially when talking about the eastern Roman Empire as well as how he describe the decline of Rome. IIRC, it was a rather simplified, at times moral argument (which was a big thing in the enlightenment age) and most notably there was little research on societal and economic factors, which, in modern scholarship would be some of the first things to look at when nations decline.

But things like sequence of events were accurate and perhaps most importantly, it tried to provide an overview of a whole lot of things. So on the high level it was a success and a monumental work, for sure. I am reminded again of Darwin, who was basically right, but for example had no concept of genetics. And perhaps one issue regarding facts is that in order to translate facts to knowledge, some interpretation and context is necessary, which Gibbon's did, but is now superseded by having found and interpreted new facts. But also keep in mind that I am just engaging in academic quibbles here. I wouldn't tell anyone not to read Gibbon or Darwin, but I find it helpful to keep the age of the books in mind.

14 minutes ago, MigL said:

And you have to admit Gibbon is a lot more accurate, in fact and interpretation, than Gees' one hour of research on Wikipedia.

I mean, that's a given .

Edit. Oh god, I really want to have more time reading books for enjoyment (not on a bloody screen. Big heavy hardbound books.. sigh).

37 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Edit. Oh god, I really want to have more time reading books for enjoyment (not on a bloody screen. Big heavy hardbound books.. sigh).

Goldsworthy, How Rome Fell, seemed meticulous in its research to me, if you ever do get back to big, heavy, hardbound. My experience of about five years of retirement is that momentum is everything - i.e. don't ever stop reading books.

16 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Goldsworthy, How Rome Fell, seemed meticulous in its research to me, if you ever do get back to big, heavy, hardbound. My experience of about five years of retirement is that momentum is everything - i.e. don't ever stop reading books.

I have heard good things about the author, but have not read it. Might want to add that to things to look forward to (probably after retirement- if books still exist then).

My problem is that I have to read too much stuff for work, leaving little time to read for enjoyment. I usually nab half an hour before bedtime every now and then, but frequently that is way past midnight and my eyes are not focusing anymore. I do not particular enjoy only have short segments of reading, especially for non-fiction. I miss being able to read through a book or a few novels over the weekend, for example. For lighter reads having a few minutes here and there kind of works, but it is somehow less fun and less immersing. I feel it also changes perception. I finished two very different novels (Klara and the Sun and Kafka on the Shore) and I would have assumed that I would like the latter more than the former, if I had read that in one setting. But in bits and pieces, the former turned out to be more memorable in my mind to my surprise. But maybe it is just my brain going mush and me needing more structure.

48 minutes ago, CharonY said:

finished two very different novels (Klara and the Sun and Kafka on the Shore) and I would have assumed that I would like the latter more than the former...

I can't even begin to imagine reading the mindbending riddles of Kafka on the Shore is one sitting. "Nakata is not very bright." Murakami novels seem to me magical and having much warmth with interesting characters, but I don't get pulled along the way conventional plots can.

Haven't read Kara and the Sun, but have it reserved at the library since I heard they were making a film version.

I guess this is OT, since neither book is likely to answer the question of totalitarian ideologies and good faith debates. Or maybe Kara does have some totalitarian elements in its future society, based on the description I've read. 😀

I wish I could still read as much as I used to.
( one 200 pg science fiction novel per night; forget the school work )

These days I need to hold the book in one hand and the magnifying glass in the other, so I prefer the computer screen.
Only problem is, I read, fall asleep, drop the laptop, then have to get another.

On 9/3/2026 at 5:45 PM, MigL said:

But I find the facts presented are essentially the same, and Gibbon does present a lot of facts.
Interpretations change over time, as sensibilities go in and out of fashion, or different biases evolve.

Gibbon had an 'enlightenment' sensibility.
Here is a 'modern' interpretation of the causes for the fall of the Roman Empire.
All the same facts are presented with the timeline of events as most other publications, but the 'root cause' ( other than the fact complex systems require multiple failure paths ) is the modern economic sensibility of currency devaluation, inflation, and no longer being able to fund the 'system'.
All in all, an interesting watch.