Why didn't China have a scientific revolution

>implying an ideology is responsible, and not a particular group of people

t. linearist

because the empereror was too busy going
>YIN AND YANG, ITS GOOD I DO BAD TINGS BECAUSE RIFE IS A MIX OF GOOD AND BAD, NOW GET TO BACK OF RINE FOR RICE BOWL

Rather we should ask why of all places scotland was the centre of the enlightenment and scientific revolution

Because scotts were demons driven to the wild edges of Europe by King Arther. There they bided their time in tell an opportunity arose to strike mankind again.

>All these people shitposting
They innovated but didn't had that sudden burst of creativity. Plus they weren't that connected the the ME like the West was

Because chink put all their autistic power into humanities.
>how to formulate best relationship between lord and servant, between father and son, between everybody.

>Muh histories. Gotta reanalysis all classical texts and stuff. Always research and refine previous dynasties official histories, find out all their inaccuracies and stuff.

>muh poet for power.

You can't imagine how much time not-a-serf ancient chinese spent in their life to study all the nebulous histories of all china (from the beginning of civilization)

They didn't put enough points into that research tree.

Scientists have a kind of slave morality or rather inversed master morality. I forgot if Nietzsche named it anything.

a particular group of people following and spreading a certain ideaology

how

>The high-level equilibrium trap is a concept developed by environmental historian Mark Elvin to explain why China never underwent an indigenous Industrial Revolution, despite its wealth, stability, and high level of scientific achievement. Essentially, he claims that the Chinese pre-industrial economy had reached an equilibrium point where supply and demand were well balanced. Late imperial production methods and trade networks were so efficient and labor was so cheap that investment in capital to improve efficiency would not be profitable.

>At the same time, an intellectual paradigm shift from Taoism to Confucianism among the intelligentsia moved the focus of academic inquiry from natural science and mathematics, which were conceived of under Taoism as investigations into the mystical nature of the universe, to studies of social philosophy and morality under Confucianism. According to Elvin, this produced an intellectual climate that was not conducive to technical innovation.

>By comparison, the economy of Great Britain at the time of the Industrial Revolution was vastly smaller and less efficient than the late imperial Chinese economy. Labor was comparatively more expensive, and internal trade far less efficient than in China. This produced large imbalances in the forces of supply and demand, leading to economic problems which provided a large financial incentive for the creation of scientific and engineering advances designed to address them. At the same time, the Enlightenment had shifted the focus of academic inquiry towards natural sciences, providing the basis for many technical innovations.

completely disagree with the idea that intellectuals are focused on philosophy so can't be scientists, often it's the opposite

in Europe if you were a philosopher you were everything, look at Descartes' bio it's amazing, and he certainly isn't the only one

China's scientific achievements are likely more related to their society, because in Europe it was a very specific case since the wealthy often protected intellectuals, or they themselves were wealthy, think Voltaire (protected by Russian aristocracy) or Lavoisier

>>Obsession with wisdom of the past and cyclical view of history

This. You have no idea how many states would still be living in huts and dying from silly diseases because of this.

>Why does Islam have no reformation.

non practising muslim here. Wanna know why? Read this: