Civilizo: Malsamoj inter versioj
| [kontrolita revizio] | [kontrolita revizio] |
Enhavo forigita Enhavo aldonita
Kani (diskuto | kontribuoj) Neniu resumo de redakto |
Kani (diskuto | kontribuoj) Neniu resumo de redakto |
||
Linio 15:
[[Dosiero:Cuenco de Los Millares.png|thumb|dekstre|Reproduktaĵo de bovlo el Los Millares kun la tipaj ''okuloj'' de [[Ĥalkolitiko]] de SOr Iberio.]]
Ĉirkaŭ la fino de la neolitika periodo, variaj civilizoj de la [[Ĥalkolitiko]] ekaperis en variaj "ludiloj" el ĉirkaŭ 3300 a.K. Ĥalkolitikaj Civilizoj, kiel difinitaj sube, ankaŭ disvolvigita en [[Antaŭkolumba Ameriko]] kaj, spite frua starto en Egipto, Aksumo kaj Kuŝo, multe poste en [[Ferepoko|ferepoka]] [[Afriko|sub-Sahara Afriko]]. La [[Bronzepoka kolapso]] estis sekvita de la [[Ferepoko]] ĉirkaŭ 1200 a.K., dum kiu aperis nombraj novaj civilizoj, rezulte en la transiro de la Aksa Epoko al la [[Grek-romia antikvo|klasika civilizo]]. Ĉefa teknologia kaj kultura transiro al la [[moderna epoko]] ekis proksimume ĉirkaŭ 1500 a.K. en [[Okcidenta Eŭropo]], kaj el tiuj komencoj novaj alproksimiĝoj al la [[scienco]] kaj [[juro]] etendiĝis rapide tra la tuta mondo.<ref>{{citation|title=Civilization|last=Ferguson|first=Niall|authorlink=|year=2011}}</ref>
== Historio de la koncepto ==
La vorto ''civilizo'' devenas el la vorto de la [[Historio de Francio|16a jarcenta Francio]] ''civilisé'' (civilizita), el la [[latina]] ''civilis'' (civila), rilata al ''civis'' (civitano) kaj ''civitas'' (urbo).<ref>Larry E. Sullivan (2009), [https://books.google.com/books?id=3041K2Zv76AC&pg=PT73 ''The SAGE glossary of the social and behavioral sciences''], Editions SAGE, p. 73</ref>
La fundamenta traktaĵo estas tiu de [[Norbert Elias]] nome ''Über den Prozeß der Zivilisation'' (1939), kiu studas sociajn [[kutimo]]jn el [[Kortego|mezepokaj kortegaj socioj]] al la komenco de la [[Moderna Epoko]].<ref>Ĝi pluestas la plej influa sociologia studo pri la temo, disvastigante sian propran aron de duaranga literaturo. Elstare, Hans Peter Duerr atakis ĝin per ĉefa verko (3,500 paĝoj en kvin volumoj, publikigitaj en 1988–2002). Elias, tiam naŭdekjarulo, estis ankoraŭ kapabli respondi al la kritikaro la jaron antaŭ sia morto. En 2002, Duerr estis li mem kritikita de la verko de Michael Hinz nome ''Der Zivilisationsprozeß: Mythos oder Realität'' (2002), dirante ke lia kritikaro pliigis malaman misfamigo de Elias, tra troaj normigaj kvantoj de [[politika ĝusteco]]. ''[[Der Spiegel]]'' [http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-25327104.html 40/2002]</ref>
En ''Kulturphilosophie. Verfall und Wiederaufbau der Kultur'' (1923), [[Albert Schweitzer]] skizas du opiniojn: unu pure [[materiismo|materiisma]] kaj la alia materia kaj [[etiko|etika]]. Li diris ke la monda krizo estis el humaneco perdante la etikan ideon de civilizo, "the sum total of all progress made by man in every sphere of action and from every point of view in so far as the progress helps towards the spiritual perfecting of individuals as the progress of all progress."{{page needed|date=October 2014}}
{{redaktata}}
Adjectives like ''civility'' developed in the mid-16th century. The abstract noun ''civilisation'', meaning "civilized condition," came in the 1760s, again from French.
The first known use in French is in 1757, by [[Victor Riqueti, marquis de Mirabeau]], and the first use in English is attributed to [[Adam Ferguson]], who in his 1767 ''[[Essay on the History of Civil Society]]'' wrote, "<!-- keep original spelling please -->Not only the individual advances from infancy to manhood, but the species itself from rudeness to civilisation."<ref name=Benveniste>cited after [[Émile Benveniste]], "''Civilisation. Contribution à l'histoire du mot''" (Civilisation. Contribution to the history of the word), 1954, published in ''Problèmes de linguistique générale'', [[Éditions Gallimard]], 1966, pp.336–345 (translated by Mary Elizabeth Meek as ''Problems in general linguistics'', 2 vols., 1971)</ref>" The word was therefore opposed to barbarism or rudeness, in the active pursuit of [[Progress (history)|progress]] characteristic of the [[Age of Enlightenment]].
In the late 1700s and early 1800s, during the [[French revolution]], ''civilization'' was said [[Grammatical number|singular]], never plural, and meant the progress of humanity as a whole. This is still the case in French.<ref name=velkley />
The use of ''civilizations'' as a countable noun was in occasional use in the 19th century,<ref>e.g. in the title ''A narrative of the loss of the Winterton East Indiaman wrecked on the coast of Madagascar in 1792; and of the sufferings connected with that event. To which is subjoined a short account of the natives of Madagascar, with suggestions as to their civilizations'' by J. Hatchard, L.B. Seeley and T. Hamilton, London, 1820.</ref>
but has become much more common in the later 20th century, sometimes just meaning [[culture]] (itself in origin an uncountable noun, made countable in the context of [[ethnography]]).<ref>"Civilization" (1974), ''[[Encyclopædia Britannica]]'' 15th ed. Vol. II, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 956. Retrieved 25 August 2007.
Using the terms ''civilization'' and ''culture'' as equivalents is controversial{{clarify|date=October 2014}} and generally rejected, so that for example some types of culture are not normally described as civilizations.</ref> Only in this generalized sense does it become possible to speak of a "medieval civilization," which in Elias's sense would have been an oxymoron.
Already in the 18th century, civilization was not always seen as an improvement. One historically important distinction between culture and civilization is from the writings of [[Rousseau]], particularly his work about education, ''[[Emile: or, On Education|Emile]]''. Here, civilization, being more [[reason|rational]] and socially driven, is not fully in accord with [[human nature]], and "human wholeness is achievable only through the recovery of or approximation to an original prediscursive or prerational natural unity" (see [[noble savage]]). From this, a new approach was developed, especially in Germany, first by [[Johann Gottfried Herder]], and later by philosophers such as [[Kierkegaard]] and [[Nietzsche]]. This sees cultures as natural organisms, not defined by "conscious, rational, deliberative acts" but a kind of pre-rational "folk spirit." Civilization, in contrast, though more rational and more successful in material progress, is unnatural and leads to "vices of social life" such as guile, hypocrisy, envy, and avarice.<ref name=velkley>{{Citation|title=Being after Rousseau: Philosophy and Culture in Question| last=Velkley|first=Richard|year=2002|chapter=The Tension in the Beautiful: On Culture and Civilization in Rousseau and German Philosophy|pages=11–30|publisher=The University of Chicago Press}}</ref> In [[World War II]], [[Leo Strauss]], having fled Germany, argued in New York that this opinion of civilization was behind [[Nazism]] and German [[militarism]] and [[nihilism]].<ref>"[https://archive.org/details/LeoStraussOnGermanNihilism1941 On German Nihilism]" (1999, originally a 1941 lecture), ''Interpretation'' 26, no. 3 edited by David Janssens and Daniel Tanguay.</ref>
==Civilizoj==
[[Dosiero:Attica 06-13 Athens 35 Parthenon.jpg|eta|300px|[[Grekio]] estas ofte menciata kiel ''lulilo de la [[okcidenta civilizo]]'', kaj la [[antikva Ateno]] estis konsiderata ties centro. La [[Partenono]] de Ateno estas la porĉiama [[simbolo]] de la greka kulturo.]]
| |||