Customer Reviews

Adversaries and Authorities: Investigations into Ancient Greek and Chinese Science (Ideas in Context)

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Lloyd has written a number of books on this topic. He is the only one I know with an in-depth knowledge of both ancient China and ancient Greece. Both civilizations faced similar problems but dealt with them in different ways, and Lloyd deals with this in neither a China-centric or Euro-centric way.
If there is any bias, it is minimizing or ignoring the few areas that Greece was better. In history, for example, his conclusion seems to be that both had biases, but in different ways. Greek historians, though, had much more open discussions--they could openly criticize their states, promote other nations (such as Egypt or Persia) as equal or superior to Greece in certain ways, and take on popular writers, leaders or philosophers. Chinese historians occasionally offered muted criticism of emperors, but didn't waver in their Sinocentrism. Not that Greek historians had no biases or their weren't great Chinese historians (Sima Guang being the first), but history advanced as a social science first in Greece.
That being said, overall it is a very good book, but it assumes a little previous knowledge of both civilizations.
The previous reviewer should have at least mentioned the book he is supposed to be writing a review of--instead he focuses on a review of the book that is no longer posted.

The previous reviewer totally missed the mark with his comments. His review represents the worst of both worlds---frivolous logic and ignorance of history. First of all, his statement that the "Chinese didn't develop philosophy and episteme" almost made me fall of my chair from laughter. I should suggest that he read a good book on Chinese history, such as Jacques Gernet's "A History of Chinese Civilization". Or else he won't contribute anything meaningful to this review section. Furthermore, this reviewer went on to postulate that a comparison of any sort has to be made with hellenic culture as the basis. Aside from being grotesquely wrong, the statement is a real head-scratcher. A comparison, by its very definition, is mutual. This means that it should involve all parties concerned equally. If one gives more emphasis to hellenic culture, then its value is nothing more than an ego-booster, as is the common problem plaguing, more often than not, western works on history. The reviewer only knew of Alexander's expedition, but seemed to have no idea of the Han and Tang expansions, extensive contacts and influences with Southeast Asia, Central Asia, Middle East, and even the Roman Empire. If you really want to compare, Alexander was much farther from coming into contact with Chinese civilization than the Chinese was with Hellenic culture.