Technology is an important aspect in all civilizations, and with respect to the point of view viewed the viewpoints vary greatly.
Especially when evaluating opinions of lower course and prestige people, or perhaps gender. During the early 1st centuries from the Han Dynasty and Roman Empire there are a lot of mixed thoughts toward technology. Depending on whose opinion you heard the response would change between negative and confident outlooks.
Many opinions appeared to have been structured off of the next categories, usefulness, citizen’s use, and splendor. Opinions diverse depending on the major concern of the idea of view and the category they belonged to. When views were acessed on usefulness their main concern was the efficiency with the technology and if it was user friendly. One Han government standard wrote to local officials in the early second century (B.
C. E) relating to flood prevention (doc. 1). His thoughts and opinions was well educated because being of an prestige and being a government standard meant having been well educated, and in addition his opinion was of any situation he witnessed and he had proof to support his thoughts. His opinion was unbiased and trustworthy since his problems were not to get himself however for all the people of the civilization. This is proven when he states more organization should be used in order to stay in the loop for of issues that affect everyone of the dynasty.
He felt technology was advanced enough to prevent water damage more efficiently but there needed to be a greater hard work into creating a greater number of normal water conservation offices in every single district. Total he would not believe that technology was inadequate but the firm of the usage of technology was. Huan Tan, an upper-class philosopher in about 20 C. E also had an opinion weighing on functionality (doc.
3). Being a thinker you can believe he was learned and therefore his opinion is usually educated. Huan’s point of view was based on functionality because he had a positive opinion on technology due to the performance and convenience of tools and the quickly progression than it. He demonstrates the technology is successful by saying facts like that the pestle and the mortar were modified and were made capable of allowing the weight in the whole body being used.
Since Huan included these sorts of information it reveals he’s well educated in the area of technology. Overall Huan Tan a new very great outlook on technology, feeling that it developed at a steady pace. The cause History of the first Han Empire was a government sponsored supply that comes from the period of about two hundred C. Elizabeth. (doc.
4). This thoughts and opinions is evidently biased and untrustworthy mainly because its govt sponsored and so was drafted to support the us government and help to make it look successful. This is certainly proven if the governor of Nanyang, Tu Shui is built to look good by statement that he better technology as they loved his people a great deal he desired to make existence easy as possible for them.
Though this point of view is untrustworthy it truly is still considered on functionality due to the intended concern of the efficiency and having technology be useful without having to perform much function. The last opinion formed by simply practicality was one of a Seneca upper classman philosopher and advisor to Chief Nero (doc. 7).
This time of perspective again can be someone of the higher school with more money and therefore would not rely on technology as much as somebody of a reduce class. His opinion of technology was negative; he believed tools were made by unintelligent men. His opinion was based off of practicality and was tested by his statement that recent inventions were not simply inefficient although also were useless. This individual felt inventors no longer, no matter how intelligent, would not think outside the box and later tackled moderate issues that weren’t of large concern.
Overall this individual felt higher issues must be taken about by persons of the two intelligence and creativity. Additional opinions appeared to have many concern with citizen’s use. The moment weighing on this, the point of view was most affected by the knowledge of who used the technology or the convenience of the usage of the technology. A government official by name in the event that Huan Guan has a unfavorable outlook in technology based off of citizen’s use (doc. 2).
This perspective is definitely from an informed upper class person who as a result does not do much manual labor. Foundry function and sodium boiling were at one time in order to be done by workers so long as they implemented two circumstances, they must report these people were doing so and in addition they had to shell out a duty. During the earlier time the equipment that were used to do these jobs were made by families and were useful and high quality. Later on the state forced citizens to only utilize the iron equipment manufactured by them, which were nonfunctional. This is generally known as convict labor, and in doing so they also monopolized the salt and iron deals.
This issue angered Huan Guan because this caused the salt and iron rates to rise and made it and so lower school citizens cannot afford to buy either. Huan felt technology was being fragile by the government and that so that it is more difficult to get families to continue their businesses was not proper. Another thoughts and opinions based off of citizen’s use was certainly one of a Cicero upper-class Both roman political leader of the 1st century (B. C. Elizabeth. ). This opinion originates from an upper class man who not go handy-work and thus cannot state and accurate opinion about technology.
He believed there was a fine line between the big difference of a gentleman and a male. He believed certain careers were deteriorating to men, such as manual labor or handy work. He states, Vulgar and unbecoming to a gentleman are all the jobs hired staff take on (doc. 5). He feels the work they certainly is paid out by the labor they do and never the skill of their operate.
In conclusion he doesn’t observe any importance in the area of technology, also he doesn’t necessarily have a negative nor positive opinion he just doesn’t value this, h cares about you more regarding his status. The last source weighed on citizen’s use is one via Frontinus, a Roman general, governor of Britain and water commissioner for the city of Rome (doc. 8). His opinion is definitely biased as they is texas chief of Britain and for that reason feels his civilization is among the most advanced and has the greatest technology as they is in charge of it.
This is proven when he says that Roman technology surpasses any other including both the Egyptian’s and the Greeks. Frontinus feels that the works of those two civilizations will be useless, he states, Compare such numerous and indispensible structures transporting so much drinking water with the nonproductive pyramids, or perhaps the useless yet famous works of the Greeks. This individual feels only Roman technology has the beauty aspect while still being useful.
He seems his technology is so successful because the aqueducts were thus successful they will made it easy for people of any course to have an large quantity of water, which shows his view was depending on citizen’s work with. Lastly, some opinions were made by the natural beauty of technology. Very simply this is how the point of view can be confirmed by the appearance as opposed to the efficiency or perhaps usefulness of the technology. Plutarch, a Greek-born Roman citizen and substantial official in the second 100 years describes Gaius Gracchus a Roman politics leader in the first century’s opinion about technology (doc.
6). This kind of source can be unreliable because it is not a primary source and therefore is much less reliable for the reason that opinion might have been slightly modified by misinterpretation or on purpose. The major concern according to the source, of Gaius Gracchus was the overall look of everything and never the convenience of it; this individual wanted anything to be pleasing to the eye. All streets were straight; both sides of bridges had to be equal and parallel height with the end result that the highway for its complete course had a level and beautiful overall look. (doc. 6).
Overall the appearance was your greatest aspect when it came to Gaius Gracchus. Once again just as all of those other documents the idea of look at belonged to an upper-class man, we have not any opinions coming from a woman or perhaps someone of any lower category. Out of all the paperwork the point of view lacking in order to genuinely decipher the complete attitudes towards Han and Roman technology is the thoughts and opinions of a reduced class person such as a peasant. All the paperwork come from the perspective of an upper-class male.
Hence the ultimate frame of mind toward the technology of Han and Rome can not be determined. Every single documents perspective varied according to how they produced their thoughts and opinions, whether it had been weighted on practicality, citizen’s use, or beauty.