Leonardo and Ts'ai Lun -- two smart dudes!
After reading these two articles, my first reaction is why Dr.Jim Jansen chooses these two inventors? Obviously there two articles come from different books. The article about Ts'ai Lun comes from the book: The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History. The article about Leonardo da Vinci comes from the book The Renaissance (The Story of Civilization V).
In The 100, the top 10 are
1 Mohammed
2 Isaac Newton
3 Jesus Christ
4 Buddha
5 Confucius
6 St. Paul
7 Ts'ai Lun
8 Johannes Gutenberg
9 Christopher Columbus
10 Albert Einstein
Why does Dr. Jim Jansen choose the 7th, rather than the 1st?
As to Leonardo da Vinci, there is not doubt that he was one of the greatest figures at that time.
My question is why pick a 7th from on place and then pick another great man from another place, and put them parallel with each other, labeling them as two smart dudes? What is the rationale behind the selection?
While I am happy that Hart put Ts'ai Lun in front of Gutenberg, but I really doubt some of the arguments the author provided. For example, the author mentioned that "It is true, of course, that agriculture and writing developed earlier in the Middle East that they did in China. That alone, however, would not explain why Chinese civilization consistently lagged behind that of the West". Firstly, the latest archeology discovery confirms that the area of downstream Changyang River is the earliest agriculture place that have been discovered. Secondly, there is no evidence to confirm that Chinese civilization consistently lagged behind that of the West. Actually, the West consistently lagged behind that of China.
I admitted that China did lag behind the West from the 18th century. The reason for this is not because of printing, but because of industrial revolution. China did not catch up with the industrial revolution not because Chinese do not have enough books for people to read, but because China was closed to the outside world. At that time, Chinese did not bother to learn science and technology. At that time, Chinese paid most of their attention on the philosophy of Confucius. Lack of communication with the Western world and do not bother to learn technology which was looked down upon at that time made China lag behind.
As to the chapter introducing Leonardo da Vinci, I wish I could have read that before the Spring break. During the spring break, I went to New York and visited the Metropolitan Museum. I just browsed the exhibits without understanding the story behind that. Although I know some of them, but it is far from enough. Is it a failure of eduction, which make us a Ph.D in technology and engineering and at the same time make us a blind in front of arts?
In The 100, the top 10 are
1 Mohammed
2 Isaac Newton
3 Jesus Christ
4 Buddha
5 Confucius
6 St. Paul
7 Ts'ai Lun
8 Johannes Gutenberg
9 Christopher Columbus
10 Albert Einstein
Why does Dr. Jim Jansen choose the 7th, rather than the 1st?
As to Leonardo da Vinci, there is not doubt that he was one of the greatest figures at that time.
My question is why pick a 7th from on place and then pick another great man from another place, and put them parallel with each other, labeling them as two smart dudes? What is the rationale behind the selection?
While I am happy that Hart put Ts'ai Lun in front of Gutenberg, but I really doubt some of the arguments the author provided. For example, the author mentioned that "It is true, of course, that agriculture and writing developed earlier in the Middle East that they did in China. That alone, however, would not explain why Chinese civilization consistently lagged behind that of the West". Firstly, the latest archeology discovery confirms that the area of downstream Changyang River is the earliest agriculture place that have been discovered. Secondly, there is no evidence to confirm that Chinese civilization consistently lagged behind that of the West. Actually, the West consistently lagged behind that of China.
I admitted that China did lag behind the West from the 18th century. The reason for this is not because of printing, but because of industrial revolution. China did not catch up with the industrial revolution not because Chinese do not have enough books for people to read, but because China was closed to the outside world. At that time, Chinese did not bother to learn science and technology. At that time, Chinese paid most of their attention on the philosophy of Confucius. Lack of communication with the Western world and do not bother to learn technology which was looked down upon at that time made China lag behind.
As to the chapter introducing Leonardo da Vinci, I wish I could have read that before the Spring break. During the spring break, I went to New York and visited the Metropolitan Museum. I just browsed the exhibits without understanding the story behind that. Although I know some of them, but it is far from enough. Is it a failure of eduction, which make us a Ph.D in technology and engineering and at the same time make us a blind in front of arts?
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Leonardo and Ts'ai Lun -- two smart dudes!.
TrackBack URL for this entry: https://blogs.psu.edu/mt4/mt-tb.cgi/5623
Leave a comment