The Jomon period (縄文時代, Jōmon-jidai?) lasted from about 10,000 BC to 300 BC.
The first signs of civilization and stable living patterns appeared around 10,000 BC with the Jōmon culture, characterized by a mesolithic to neolithic semi-sedentary hunter-gatherer lifestyle of wood stilt house and pit dwelling and a rudimentary form of agriculture. Weaving was still unknown and clothes were often made of bark. Bear worship was common, as many place names still today have the word "kuma" (bear) in them. Around that time, however, the Jomon people started to make clay vessels, decorated with patterns made by impressing the wet clay with braided or unbraided cord and sticks (Jōmon means "patterns of plaited cord"😉. Some of the oldest surviving examples of pottery in the world may be found in Japan, based on radio-carbon dating, along with daggers, jade, combs made of shells, and other household items, although the specific dating is disputed. The household items suggest trade routes existed with places as far away as Okinawa. Many believe and DNA analysis suggests that the Ainu, an indigenous people found mostly today on the northern island of Hokkaidō, but previously had lived on Honshū, and potentially other groups, as mentioned in the Kojiki, such as the tsuchi-gumo (English: dirt spiders), are descended from the Jomon and thus represent descendants of the first inhabitants of Japan. Also, entire wood dwellings (that normally would rot away) have been dug up in northern Japan that were preserved in ice, dated back to before 8000 BC (radio-carbon dating).
According to disputed archeological evidence based on carbon-14, the Jomon people created the first known pottery type in the world, dated to the 11th millennium BC.[1] The Jomon people(s) were making clay figures (one popular type called dogu that was buried with the dead) and vessels decorated with patterns made by impressing the wet clay with braided or unbraided cord and sticks with a growing sophistication.The Yayoi period (弥生時代, Yayoi jidai?) lasted from about 300 BCE (although this date is debated) to 250 CE. It is named after the section of Tokyo where archaeological investigations uncovered its first recognized traces.
The start of the Yayoi period around 300 BCE marked the influx of new practices such as rice farming, shamanism and iron and bronze-making brought by migrants (i.e. Yayoi-jin) from outside of Japan.[2] As for the wet paddy rice growing, It has been assumed that the origin is Chinese Yunnan which is abundant in the flora now, but the theory goes that the origin is the Yangtze River, in which the downstream is powerful [citation needed].The tribes structured over time into many small countries (国, kuni or koku?), and alliances and warfare led to the emergence of larger and more organized entities.
Japan first appeared in written history in 57 CE with the following mention in China's Book of Later Han: "Across the ocean from Luoyang are the people of Wa (in Chinese, "Wo" or "dwarf state"😉. Formed from more than one hundred tribes, they come and pay tribute frequently."
China's Book of Wei in the 3rd century evoke the country of Yamataikoku, unifying some 30 smaller countries and ruled by a shaman queen named Himiko.Yamato polity (大和政権, Yamato polity?) was the main ruling power in Japan from the middle of the 3rd century until 710. The Kofun period (mid 3rd century - mid 6th century), is defined by a tumulus-building culture; the keyhole-shaped tumuli are called kofun. The Asuka period (mid 6th century - 710), is defined as the time in which the capital was in Asuka, near present-day Nara.
During the 5th and 6th centuries, there was much contact between the Korean kingdoms such as Baekje and the Yamato state. Some of the results of this contact were the introduction of Buddhism to Japan by people from Baekje, and military support given by the Yamato state to Baekje.[3][4]
The Kofun period, beginning around CE 250, is named after the large burial mounds (古墳, Kofun?) that appeared at the time. The Kofun period saw the establishment of strong military states centered around powerful clans, and the establishment of a dominant polity centered in the Yamato area, from the 3rd century to the 7th century, the Yamato Court, origin of the Japanese imperial lineage. The Yamato Court, suppressing the clans and acquiring agricultural lands, maintained a strong influence in the western part of Japan (the Asuka region). Based upon the Chinese model, they developed a central administration and an imperial court system and society was organized into occupation groups.
Several proto-state formations rivalled, possibly representing different ethnic backgrounds. There are hypotheses of a couple of bigger migrations waves of continental population to central areas of Japanese islands during this period, each bringing something vitally new or becoming a basis of a polity formation.
The Asuka period (飛鳥時代, Asuka period?) is when the proto-Japanese Yamato polity gradually became a clearly centralized state, defining and applying a code of governing laws, such as the Taika Reform and Taihō Codes.[5] The introduction of Buddhism led to the discontinuing of the practice of burial mounds, or kofun.
Buddhism was introduced to Japan by Baekje, to which Japan provided military support, [6] and it was promoted by the ruling class. Prince Shotoku devoted his efforts to the spread of Buddhism and Chinese culture in Japan. He is credited with bringing relative peace to Japan through the proclamation of the Seventeen-article constitution. He wrote in a letter to the Emperor of China that the 'Emperor of the Land where the Sun rises' (Japan) sends a letter to the 'Emperor of the land where Sun sets' (China), thereby implying a declaration of equal footing with China which angered the Chinese emperor.[7]
Starting with the Taika Reform Edicts of 645, Japanese intensified the adoption of Chinese cultural practices and reorganized the government and the penal code in accordance with the Chinese administrative structure (the Ritsuryo state) of the time. This paved the way for the dominance of Confucian philosophy in Japan until the 19th century. This period also saw the first uses of the word Nihon (日本😉 as a name for the emerging state.
The Nara period of the 8th century marked the first emergence of a strong Japanese state. Started in 707, the move of the capital under Empress Genmei to Heijo-kyo, present-day Nara, was achieved in 710. The city was modelled on the capital of the Chinese Tang Dynasty, Chang'an (now Xi'an).
During the Nara Period, political developments were quite limited, since members of the imperial family struggled for power with the Buddhist clergy as well as the regents, the Fujiwara clan. Japan did enjoy friendly relations with Silla as well as formal relationships with Tang China. In 784, the capital was moved again to Nagaoka (to escape the Buddhist priests) and then in 794 to Heian-kyo, present-day Kyoto.
Historical writing in Japan culminated in the early 8th century with the massive chronicles, the Kojiki (The Record of Ancient Matters, 712) and the Nihon Shoki (Chronicles of Japan, 720). These chronicles give a legendary account of Japan's beginnings in which the people were descendants of the gods themselves. According to the myths contained in these 2 chronicles, Japan was founded in 660 BC by the ancestral Emperor Jimmu, a direct descendant of the Shinto deity Amaterasu, or the Sun Goddess. The myths also claim that Jimmu started a line of emperors that remains unbroken to this day. However, historians believe the first emperor who actually existed was Emperor Ōjin, though the date of his reign is uncertain. For most of Japan's history, actual political power has not been in the hands of the emperor, but in the hands of the court nobility, the shoguns, the military and, more recently, the prime minister.
The Heian period (平安時代, Heian period?), lasting from 794 to 1185, is the final period of classical Japanese history. It is considered the peak of the Japanese imperial court and noted for its art, especially in poetry and literature. In the early 11th century, Lady Murasaki wrote the world's oldest surviving novel called The Tale of Genji.
Strong differentiations from Asian mainland culture traits emerged (such as an indigenous writing system, the kana). Chinese influence had effectively ended with the last imperial-sanctioned mission to Tang China in 838, due to the decline of the Tang Dynasty, although trade expeditions and Buddhist pilgrimages to China continued.[8]
Political power in the Imperial court was in the hands of powerful aristocratic families, especially the Fujiwaras who ruled under the titles Sessho and Kampaku (regents).
The end of the period saw the rise of various military clans. Towards the end of the 12th century, conflicts between those clans turned into civil war (the Hōgen and Heiji Rebellions, followed by the Genpei war), from which emerged a society led by samurai clans, under the political rule of a shogun.
Originally posted by =Tired Hiker=
It's weird, I flirt with guys on this forum, like Vinny, but I'm not gay and I only do it because he did it with me first. Sometimes I go back and read all the gayness and I'm like, damn . . . . am I gay???It's kinda weird. 😕
Originally posted by InnerRise
Do you see what I quoted from you?That's all I got from your posts b/c pimpin, I aint reading all of that shit dubiously. nono
ANATA WA WAKARIMASU KA.....
Could have quoted and read it in the quotes obviously. Oh well. Good thing you don't study anything where you need to think logical or stuff.
Actually I agree. Never read what Bloigen says. He just copy pasted shit anyways.
Originally posted by Bardock42Ummm.....Since I did quote his whole post and had to delete it MANUALLY, I saw that I could have just read it there, and as I said....I WASN'T GOING TO AND I DIDN'T. 😐
Could have quoted and read it in the quotes obviously. Oh well. Good thing you don't study anything where you need to think logical or stuff.Actually I agree. Never read what Bloigen says. He just copy pasted shit anyways.
anata wa wakarimasu ka.....
Originally posted by Bardock42
Could have quoted and read it in the quotes obviously. Oh well. Good thing you don't study anything where you need to think logical or stuff.Actually I agree. Never read what Bloigen says. He just copy pasted shit anyways.
That's so not true. The definition of true can be shown as Questions about what is a proper basis on which to decide whether and to what extent words, symbols, ideas and beliefs may be said to be true, whether for a single person or an entire community or society, are among the many important questions addressed by the theories introduced below.
Each of the five substantive theories below deal with truth as something with a nature, a phenomenon, or thing, or type of human experience about which significant things can be said. These theories each present perspectives that are widely agreed by philosophers to apply in some way to a broad set of occurrences that can be observed in human interaction, or which offer significant, stable explanations for issues related to the idea of truth in human experience.[1][2] There also have more recently arisen "deflationary" or "minimalist" theories of truth based on the idea that the application of a term like true to a statement does not assert anything significant about it, for instance, anything about its nature, but that the label truth is a tool of discourse used to express agreement, to emphasize claims, or to form certain types of generalizations.[1][3][4]
[edit] Substantive theories of truth
[edit] Correspondence theory
Main article: Correspondence theory of truth
Correspondence theories claim that true beliefs and true statements correspond to the actual state of affairs.[5] This type of theory attempts to posit a relationship between thoughts or statements on the one hand, and things or objects on the other. It is a traditional model which goes back at least to some of the classical Greek philosophers.[6] This class of theories holds that the truth or the falsity of a representation is determined in principle solely by how it relates to objective reality, by whether it accurately describes that reality.
Correspondence theory traditionally operates on the assumption that truth is a matter of accurately copying "objective reality" and then representing it in thoughts, words and other symbols.[7] More modern theorists have stated that this ideal cannot be achieved independently of some analysis of additional factors. For example, language plays a role in that all languages have words that are not easily translatable into another. The German word Zeitgeist is one such example: one who speaks or understands the language may "know" what it means, but any translation of the word fails to accurately capture its full meaning. (This is a problem with many abstract words, especially those derived in agglutinative languages). Thus, the language itself adds an additional parameter to the construction of an accurate truth predicate. Among the philosophers who grappled with this problem is Alfred Tarski, whose semantic theory is summarized further below in this article.
Proponents of several of the theories below have gone farther to assert that there are yet other issues necessary to the analysis, such as interpersonal power struggles, community interactions, personal biases and other factors involved in deciding what is seen as truth.
[edit] Coherence theory
Main article: Coherence theory of truth
For coherence theories in general, truth requires a proper fit of elements within a whole system. Very often, though, coherence is taken to imply something more than simple logical consistency. For example, the completeness and comprehensiveness of the underlying set of concepts is a critical factor in judging the validity and usefulness of a coherent system.[8] A pervasive tenet of coherence theories is the idea that truth is primarily a property of whole systems of propositions, and can be ascribed to individual propositions only according to their coherence with the whole. Among the assortment of perspectives commonly regarded as coherence theory, theorists differ on the question of whether coherence entails many possible true systems of thought or only a single absolute system.
Some variants of coherence theory are claimed to characterize the essential and intrinsic properties of formal systems in logic and mathematics.[9] However, formal reasoners are content to contemplate axiomatically independent and sometimes mutually contradictory systems side by side, for example, the various alternative geometries. On the whole, coherence theories have been criticized as lacking justification in their application to other areas of truth, especially with respect to assertions about the natural world, empirical data in general, assertions about practical matters of psychology and society, especially when used without support from the other major theories of truth.[10]
Coherence theories distinguish the thought of rationalist philosophers, particularly of Spinoza, Leibniz, and G.W.F. Hegel, along with the British philosopher F.H. Bradley.[11] They have found a resurgence also among several proponents of logical positivism, notably Otto Neurath and Carl Hempel.
[edit] Constructivist theory
Main article: Constructivist epistemology
Social constructivism holds that truth is constructed by social processes, is historically and culturally specific, and that it is in part shaped through the power struggles within a community. Constructivism views all of our knowledge as "constructed," because it does not reflect any external "transcendent" realities (as a pure correspondence theory might hold). Rather, perceptions of truth are viewed as contingent on convention, human perception, and social experience. It is believed by constructivists that representations of physical and biological reality, including race, sexuality, and gender are socially constructed. Giambattista Vico was among the first to claim that history and culture were man-made. Vico's epistemological orientation gathers the most diverse rays and unfolds in one axiom--verum ipsum factum--"truth itself is constructed." Hegel, Garns, and Marx were among the other early proponents of the premise that truth is socially constructed.[citation needed].
Consensus theory
Jürgen Habermas, modern advocate of the consensus theory of truth.
Enlarge
Jürgen Habermas, modern advocate of the consensus theory of truth.
Main article: Consensus theory of truth
Consensus theory holds that truth is whatever is agreed upon, or in some versions, might come to be agreed upon, by some specified group. Among the current advocates of consensus theory as a useful accounting of the concept of "truth" is the philosopher Jürgen Habermas.[12] Among its current strong critics is the philosopher Nicholas Rescher.[13] Habermas maintains that truth is what would be agreed upon in an ideal speech situation.[citation needed]
[edit] Pragmatic theory
Main article: Pragmatic theory of truth
The three most influential forms of the pragmatic theory of truth were introduced around the turn of the 20th century by Charles Peirce, William James, and John Dewey. Although there are wide differences in viewpoint among these and other proponents of pragmatic theory, they hold in common that truth is verified and confirmed by the results of putting one's concepts into practice.[14]
Peirce defines truth as follows: "Truth is that concordance of an abstract statement with the ideal limit towards which endless investigation would tend to bring scientific belief, which concordance the abstract statement may possess by virtue of the confession of its inaccuracy and one-sidedness, and this confession is an essential ingredient of truth."[15] This statement emphasizes Peirce's view that ideas of approximation, incompleteness, and partiality, what he describes elsewhere as fallibilism and "reference to the future", are essential to a proper conception of truth. Although Peirce uses words like concordance and correspondence to describe one aspect of the pragmatic sign relation, he is also quite explicit in saying that definitions of truth based on mere correspondence are no more than nominal definitions, which he accords a lower status than real definitions.
William James's version of pragmatic theory, while complex, is often summarized by his statement that "the 'true' is only the expedient in our way of thinking, just as the 'right' is only the expedient in our way of behaving."[16] By this, James meant that truth is a quality the value of which is confirmed by its effectiveness when applying concepts to actual practice (thus, "pragmatic"😉.
John Dewey, less broadly than James but more broadly than Peirce, held that inquiry, whether scientific, technical, sociological, philosophical or cultural, is self-corrective over time if openly submitted for testing by a community of inquirers in order to clarify, justify, refine and/or refute proposed truths.[17]
Originally posted by Bardock42Oh ok. I feel much better now. doped
Which was a good decision. I just felt like insulting you.
.......I think. glare
Originally posted by Bloigen
That's so not true. The definition of true can be shown as Questions about what is a proper basis on which to decide whether and to what extent words, symbols, ideas and beliefs may be said to be true, whether for a single person or an entire community or society, are among the many important questions addressed by the theories introduced below.Each of the five substantive theories below deal with truth as something with a nature, a phenomenon, or thing, or type of human experience about which significant things can be said. These theories each present perspectives that are widely agreed by philosophers to apply in some way to a broad set of occurrences that can be observed in human interaction, or which offer significant, stable explanations for issues related to the idea of truth in human experience.[1][2] There also have more recently arisen "deflationary" or "minimalist" theories of truth based on the idea that the application of a term like true to a statement does not assert anything significant about it, for instance, anything about its nature, but that the label truth is a tool of discourse used to express agreement, to emphasize claims, or to form certain types of generalizations.[1][3][4]
[edit] Substantive theories of truth
[edit] Correspondence theory
Main article: Correspondence theory of truth
Correspondence theories claim that true beliefs and true statements correspond to the actual state of affairs.[5] This type of theory attempts to posit a relationship between thoughts or statements on the one hand, and things or objects on the other. It is a traditional model which goes back at least to some of the classical Greek philosophers.[6] This class of theories holds that the truth or the falsity of a representation is determined in principle solely by how it relates to objective reality, by whether it accurately describes that reality.
Correspondence theory traditionally operates on the assumption that truth is a matter of accurately copying "objective reality" and then representing it in thoughts, words and other symbols.[7] More modern theorists have stated that this ideal cannot be achieved independently of some analysis of additional factors. For example, language plays a role in that all languages have words that are not easily translatable into another. The German word Zeitgeist is one such example: one who speaks or understands the language may "know" what it means, but any translation of the word fails to accurately capture its full meaning. (This is a problem with many abstract words, especially those derived in agglutinative languages). Thus, the language itself adds an additional parameter to the construction of an accurate truth predicate. Among the philosophers who grappled with this problem is Alfred Tarski, whose semantic theory is summarized further below in this article.
Proponents of several of the theories below have gone farther to assert that there are yet other issues necessary to the analysis, such as interpersonal power struggles, community interactions, personal biases and other factors involved in deciding what is seen as truth.
[edit] Coherence theory
Main article: Coherence theory of truth
For coherence theories in general, truth requires a proper fit of elements within a whole system. Very often, though, coherence is taken to imply something more than simple logical consistency. For example, the completeness and comprehensiveness of the underlying set of concepts is a critical factor in judging the validity and usefulness of a coherent system.[8] A pervasive tenet of coherence theories is the idea that truth is primarily a property of whole systems of propositions, and can be ascribed to individual propositions only according to their coherence with the whole. Among the assortment of perspectives commonly regarded as coherence theory, theorists differ on the question of whether coherence entails many possible true systems of thought or only a single absolute system.
Some variants of coherence theory are claimed to characterize the essential and intrinsic properties of formal systems in logic and mathematics.[9] However, formal reasoners are content to contemplate axiomatically independent and sometimes mutually contradictory systems side by side, for example, the various alternative geometries. On the whole, coherence theories have been criticized as lacking justification in their application to other areas of truth, especially with respect to assertions about the natural world, empirical data in general, assertions about practical matters of psychology and society, especially when used without support from the other major theories of truth.[10]
Coherence theories distinguish the thought of rationalist philosophers, particularly of Spinoza, Leibniz, and G.W.F. Hegel, along with the British philosopher F.H. Bradley.[11] They have found a resurgence also among several proponents of logical positivism, notably Otto Neurath and Carl Hempel.
[edit] Constructivist theory
Main article: Constructivist epistemology
Social constructivism holds that truth is constructed by social processes, is historically and culturally specific, and that it is in part shaped through the power struggles within a community. Constructivism views all of our knowledge as "constructed," because it does not reflect any external "transcendent" realities (as a pure correspondence theory might hold). Rather, perceptions of truth are viewed as contingent on convention, human perception, and social experience. It is believed by constructivists that representations of physical and biological reality, including race, sexuality, and gender are socially constructed. Giambattista Vico was among the first to claim that history and culture were man-made. Vico's epistemological orientation gathers the most diverse rays and unfolds in one axiom--verum ipsum factum--"truth itself is constructed." Hegel, Garns, and Marx were among the other early proponents of the premise that truth is socially constructed.[citation needed].
Consensus theory
Jürgen Habermas, modern advocate of the consensus theory of truth.
Enlarge
Jürgen Habermas, modern advocate of the consensus theory of truth.Main article: Consensus theory of truth
Consensus theory holds that truth is whatever is agreed upon, or in some versions, might come to be agreed upon, by some specified group. Among the current advocates of consensus theory as a useful accounting of the concept of "truth" is the philosopher Jürgen Habermas.[12] Among its current strong critics is the philosopher Nicholas Rescher.[13] Habermas maintains that truth is what would be agreed upon in an ideal speech situation.[citation needed]
[edit] Pragmatic theory
Main article: Pragmatic theory of truth
The three most influential forms of the pragmatic theory of truth were introduced around the turn of the 20th century by Charles Peirce, William James, and John Dewey. Although there are wide differences in viewpoint among these and other proponents of pragmatic theory, they hold in common that truth is verified and confirmed by the results of putting one's concepts into practice.[14]
Peirce defines truth as follows: "Truth is that concordance of an abstract statement with the ideal limit towards which endless investigation would tend to bring scientific belief, which concordance the abstract statement may possess by virtue of the confession of its inaccuracy and one-sidedness, and this confession is an essential ingredient of truth."[15] This statement emphasizes Peirce's view that ideas of approximation, incompleteness, and partiality, what he describes elsewhere as fallibilism and "reference to the future", are essential to a proper conception of truth. Although Peirce uses words like concordance and correspondence to describe one aspect of the pragmatic sign relation, he is also quite explicit in saying that definitions of truth based on mere correspondence are no more than nominal definitions, which he accords a lower status than real definitions.
William James's version of pragmatic theory, while complex, is often summarized by his statement that "the 'true' is only the expedient in our way of thinking, just as the 'right' is only the expedient in our way of behaving."[16] By this, James meant that truth is a quality the value of which is confirmed by its effectiveness when applying concepts to actual practice (thus, "pragmatic"😉.
John Dewey, less broadly than James but more broadly than Peirce, held that inquiry, whether scientific, technical, sociological, philosophical or cultural, is self-corrective over time if openly submitted for testing by a community of inquirers in order to clarify, justify, refine and/or refute proposed truths.[17]
anata wa wakarimasu ka.....
Originally posted by InnerRise
Oh ok. I feel much better now. doped.......I think. glare
While you keep telling me to stop doing the deed at hand(Pun intended) Maybe you should start and occupy your hand so that you won't make posts such as this one. 😉
anata wa wakarimasu ka.....
I'm ambidextrous. 😖hifty:
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I hate when ppl do that shit...there argument contains no substance that way.
It's not an argument. ermm
He said "he just copy pasted shit", so jokingly defending myself, I said that was a lie but also proving it wasn't by making it obvious it was from wikipedia.
It's sad I have to explain this.