Re: dialogue of civilizations?

Dear Seyed and All recipient
Hello everybody;
I am agree with Javad that we need a precise definition of term. In the
recent posts on this list two of our friends have a negligence on
the meaning of the Civiliazation. Perhaps, It was not an amnesia or was
inspired from their marxist vision. Any way, I want just refesh the
memory about the sociological meaning of " Civilization". This term is
derived from Latin and its roots are "Civitas" and "Civis" that mean
City. Lalande Dictionnery has defined civilization as a comlex of
transferable social phenomens that comprehend divers aspects. Religious,
moral, scientifical, technical and aesthetical, aspects are the component
parts of a civilization.     
 Civilization in sociology means the spritual, intellectual and material
development of human societies. Our friends indicated only to material
dimention of civilization and neglicted the others, essential ones. If you
take material as an solely indice of civilization you have committed a
great error. You have wipped the humanity caracter of the history. In this
way, You see only the material point of history without considering the
ideas that had lain behind of these fabricated materials. You have put
away the sciences that produce the technology and the materials. This
Science is itself the fruit of Reason and Human Culture. It's very
difficult to make a secession between Culture and Civilization. Perhaps
their narrow difference can be seen at their expanded area. Civilization
comprehend a big and sophisticated society whereas culture consist of
small, and unmixed societies. You may speak of civilization when you
bring up the cities and urban societies, nothing else even not
villages. At that time, the civilization, ( I reiterate we speak about
human being not trees, animals, plants etc ), is a set of sciences,
technologies, control of nature, and organization of social life that are
incarnated in a series of networks. Civilization is a collection of divers
social elements like economical, political, judicial, juridicial,
cultural, moral and religious elements and they are less connection to
material and mechanical elements.
It's very clear every culture or nation or any social units that are
historically strong and rich in these area can play an essential role in
a dialogue between civilizations.

Cordial Regards
Reza Taghavi

P.S. Sorry if you find my english less fluency. Indeed, we are more used 
french as our academic language in Laval University at Quebec, Canada.  


Reza Taghavi-Abkuh
PhD Candidat
Departement de Sociologie
Faculte de Sciences Sociales
Universite Laval, Quebec, Canada




On Thu, 2 May 2002, Seyed Javad wrote:

> 
> Greetings,
> 
> Wasn't prior to Huntington Toynbee who spoke more rigorously about
> 'Civilizations'? I think before denying or approving the debates on
> 'Civilizations' and 'civilizational dialogue', it would be better to make
> clear what we do mean by the 'concept'. No?
> 
> Kind
> 
> Seyed
> 
> 
> 
>________________________________________________________________________________
> Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: Click Here
> 
>