The revolutionary discovery is some ancient manuscripts. These manuscripts show that early Chinese philosophers may have argued that rulers should abdicate the throne in favor of the the one with most merit. Rulers should not pass the title to their children.
I tend to read comments, and not articles - as a result, sometimes I wish that HN had a special `TLDR` subsection, directly below a posting, that used vote-based mechanics for the selection of a post like this.
Kudos to you for such a concise summary :thumbsup:
The NY Review of Books is still primarily designed as a print publication. The title here shows up on their table of contents page, so you might better describe it as “flipbait”. Notice that on the NYRB ToC page, the title of the book under review – Buried Ideas: Legends of Abdication and Ideal Government in Early Chinese Bamboo-Slip Manuscripts – is also printed, giving additional context to the review.
There’s nothing especially “these days” about magazine essay titles with puns in them. Catching a reader’s eye and enticing him to start reading is the title’s primary purpose. This isn’t a newspaper story, where the reader might be trying to get a clear idea of the day’s main events just by skimming the headlines.
I normally really cringe when I see "TLDR" and "ELI5" all over the comments of every post in places like reddit (where the original piece is thoughtful and well worth a full read), but I am starting to appreciate its role when content has such click-bait titles.
If people wouldn't link to garbage there wouldn't be a need for TL;DR because a high quality news article is already minimized and compact. This is a cultural problem on HN, since a year or so we've seen a massive increase in "bla bla" articles reaching the top (at least it feels that way).
Terrible. The TLDR given by OP completely misses the point of the article. The scrolls aren't a revolutionary discovery because of what they contain, but because of what implications can be drawn as a result (which you'll have to read the article).
These are more than just some ancient manuscripts. These are scripts that somehow survived the most comprehensive cultural and intellectual cleansing in known history. The Qin emperor purged China of ideas he found distasteful and for over 2 thousand years, those ideas have remained purged. These manuscripts partially change that.
First, the term "common culture" is relative. In here they are talking about intellectual ideas. There always existed seductive ideas spreading among the (somewhat free) class of intellectuals but these shared flows of ideas were not necessarily representative for neither the (territorially divided) masses of people living somewhere on lower levels of the social ladder nor for the class of rulers above them (which were clearly territorially distinct before unification). The said scholars were in a privileged position of affording to maintain relations with outsiders without much hurdles. The underlings were too poor or too mediocre to want such things, the political lords above them were bound by loyalties and other obligations which made interacting with equals outside their political sphere difficult and suspicious. So this "common culture" may not be more common than say, revolutionary/socialist ideas shared between small groups of intellectuals across the Europe in the eighteen-nineteen centuries. Actually, "not necessarily representative" is too mildly put considering the heavy censoring that casted them into oblivion afterwards!
Second, this is a batch of documents extracted from one place. It's safe to assume that all they reflect is the views of whoever gathered them. It's the confirmation bias, you know?
> Second, this is a batch of documents extracted from one place. It's safe to assume that all they reflect is the views of whoever gathered them. It's the confirmation bias, you know?
The point though is that some of these documents went a very long way to find their burial in the south. Yeah, a sample size of 1 isn't very much to go on (maybe these documents were kept because they were prized possessions of 'foreign' lands?), but it does show in the very least a deep cultural contact between disparate kingdoms in the pre-China age.
"but it does show in the very least a deep cultural contact between disparate kingdoms in the pre-China age."
Cultural contact - yes, deep - not so convinced. If the said territories would indeed have been in a deep cultural tie they wouldn't had to be united by war. Look at the Romanian unifications:
