I love the word ‘decadent’/ ‘decadence’ I don’t know why. Just always have. I like to observe examples of decadence and speculate about what decadence is. Decadence infecting a civilisation is sexy. It usually seems tragic but might be a necessary part of historys pulse beat of rise and fall. Civilisations rise and fall but they always retain elements and ghosts of their antecedents. So decadence might serve a role in some kind of Hegelian meta progress.

Decadence in:

Hellenic civilisation: Euripides
Rome: Jesus
Christendom: Galileo
Modern Europe: No Idea. Candidates: Democracy. Corporations. Darwin. Computers.

__________________
You fell down of course, and then you got up of course and started over. Forgot my name of course, then you started to remember.

Decadence in America:

__________________
You fell down of course, and then you got up of course and started over. Forgot my name of course, then you started to remember.

__________________
You fell down of course, and then you got up of course and started over. Forgot my name of course, then you started to remember.

'Classicism is the subordination of the parts to the whole; decadence is the subordination of the whole to the parts' - Oscar Wilde.

Sounds a bit like Hitlerism

__________________
You fell down of course, and then you got up of course and started over. Forgot my name of course, then you started to remember.

galileo is a curious one for a catholic church whose own decadence was being rejected by the reformation. i'm not sure heliocenticism was the most dangerous heresy it had to contend with at the time.

decadence is the subordination of the hole to the private parts

So what then?

Im thinking along the lines that science killed Christendom. So the vote goes to galileo the 'father of modern science'.

Luther?

__________________
You fell down of course, and then you got up of course and started over. Forgot my name of course, then you started to remember.

are you identifying the prime mover in the change as the decadent one? because with luther it's probably the opposite.

also rome was decadent hundreds of years before constantine.

and why does decadence have to be involved in all change? you can throw off values, traditions, etc. and change because the values and traditions are obsolete, not because of a decline in values.

I conceiveof a civilisation at its zenith as something quite beautiful. United, fluid, purposful. And things change. Something happens. With Christendom I honestly think it was science. Ockams Razor. Kant in philosophy (tried to reconcile religion with Newton [didnt work, relogated Religion to noumena). Newton fueled Industrial Revolution changed the whole ecconomic structure. No more christendom. The reformation/counter reformation was just religious squabbling. In a big scale. They all lost in the end to Newton.

Maybe. How so? Was that the decadence that lead to its decline?

So why does that allways happen in synch with the decline of a civilisation? Probably those traditions etc was what what holding things together. Throw it away and you get fragmentation.

I dont think I said values though. Dont go making out like im a moral conservative.

__________________
You fell down of course, and then you got up of course and started over. Forgot my name of course, then you started to remember.

you could attribute many descriptions to jesus, luther and galileo, but i think decadent fails to be one of them.

Well yeah looking at them as individuals, that would be a harsh judgemant. But im looking from a different and particular angle. You dont see it?

__________________
You fell down of course, and then you got up of course and started over. Forgot my name of course, then you started to remember.

ithink so called "empires" rise and fall on purpose

I think it sounds nice to say. The "d-k-d" sound. Works for me.

__________________
Time is the distance that you can't return by miles.

I escaped somehow. Let's go

actualy [sic] I have quite a blessed life if I'm honest. I have many people to love, hate few and have few money problem's [sic].... What more does a person need? Oh yeah and I have some kind of humbleness unlike you of course ^_^ ~ CarefulCarpenter

"Decadent" doesn't exactly spring to mind when you think about the Roman Empire, but it certainly can be attributed to it. I think that in order to have decadence, you also must have prestige. So it's more likely for people to associate you with your prestige, rather than your decadence.

half the caesers were personally decadent. i'm not sure if this was true of the civic structure though until later

__________________
they made soup out of my research turtles.

<<Well yeah looking at them as individuals, that would be a harsh judgemant. But im looking from a different and particular angle. You dont see it?>>

I see that Rome was quite decadent in many ways, the Catholic church was decadent in some ways (as kesh stated), but the individuals listed--no, not at all. Unless you're speaking from the perspective of a Jew in Romish times toward Jesus, many of whom at the time he was living felt he was perhaps "decadent" for breaking certain Jewish laws. In this light I do understand what you are saying, and that example goes double for Luther and the Catholic Church.

Depends who's surrendering whose hole to whose parts.



FUCK I'M FUNNY.

Civilisations thrive on knowing all their actions will be right and justified before they even think about doing them. Religion is a good framework for that; science, not so good.

been done

__________________
they made soup out of my research turtles.