The reason why many moderns deprecate the ancients is because they don’t understand the ancients. Even those who profess to appreciate the ancients usually cannot understand the ancients.
Take, for instance, natural philosophy and traditional medicine. Most modern scholars who study traditional medicine see it as a precursor to modern medicine. That’s why they focus so much its chemical and biochemical aspects, even though these were on the whole irrelevant to natural philosophy. For most modern scholars, traditional medicine is to be applauded when it conforms to modern medicine. Its magical and superstitious aspects are to be condemned. These modern scholars, despite years of reading ancient manuscripts, have entirely missed the essence of traditional medicine. Neither do they believe in its efficacy. (See Culpeper’s Medicine or Chishti’s The Traditional Healer or Matthew Wood’s Practice of Traditional Herbalism)
The same goes for alchemy, which many modern scholars reduce to a precursor of chemistry. This includes Joseph Needham’s monumental study of Chinese technologies. I do not deny its great value. It’s huge. But, from the perspective of the practicing alchemist, as well as his historical predecessors, these modern surveys focus exclusively on a very narrow aspect of alchemy (those parts which anticipated later chemical discoveries). Most modern scholars of ancient technology see their tasks as reformulating ancient treatises in modern terms, stripping away irrelevant philosophies, and correcting the “errors” of the ancients.
Again the problem is perspective. Most scholars perceive alchemy through the lense of chemistry. Sometimes this is useful. Generally it is misleading. What they should be doing is to view alchemy from the perspective of alchemy (natural philosophy) – and most importantly, testing the ancient instructions personally and empirically.
This applies of course to basically every aspect of ancient ideas. Most of all, philosophy. After I read Peter Kingsley’s trilogy on the pre-Socratics, I could never again trust a modern commentary on ancient philosophy. The only way to understand the ancients is by going to the source, preferably in the original language.
Even people who are sympathetic to ancient philosophies often have difficulty understanding the ancient worldview. For instance, the idea that the world is alive (sentient and possessing a soul) is often bandied around New Age circles. But I doubt most people who say this understand what it means.
(I can right now think of three ways to explain it. First, the ancient view is that minerals are fundamentally no different from plants, animals, and humans. The latter three are merely more developed with regard to certain faculties. Second, in the same way that a human hand merely form a part of a larger human, and cannot be understood apart from it, all things are but components of a greater harmonious whole, the world, which is in this sense like a great animal, and we its cells. I like Ibn Tufail’s account the best. It bears certain resemblance to the modern Gaia theory. Third, in the view of some alchemists, all things are reduced to sulphur (soul), mercury (spirit), and salt (body). Having established that the world operates as a great harmonious whole, it follows that this whole has a soul also. Hence it is said, the world is living, sentient, and with soul.)
Rare today is the student who bravely transcends the modern view. In former days, teachers help students transcend the parochial fashions of their own historical circumstances. This is done by reading histories, as well as ancient authors. Today, with the increasing predominance of technical training, students are condemned to be replaceable cogwheels of an impersonal tyranny.
Unlike Jeremiah, I reject all progressivist intrepretations of history. Firstly, about big things – it is evident that disunity leads to unity, and unity leads to disunity. When Zhou first declined, its rituals remained intact. During that time, the many kingdoms fought with restraint, and disguised their motives with talks of honour. We see Duke Xiang of Song forbidding his soldiers from fighting the wounded and the elderly, and from attacking men crossing the river. Later, when order collapsed, the rules of conduct were more and more disregarded, until the cruelty and atrocity of Qin destroyed the kingdoms.
People think the Geneva Convention is a big step forward for mankind, but actually these ideas have always been around. They have never lasted. Peace leads to war. War brings cruelty, and when peace returns, people regret war and try to restrain it. It never works. In our time, we see the UN more and more disregarded. It will not last either.
Concerning Zhuangzi’s sceptism of language. Actually, scepticism of language has always been around, and is throughout history the dominant trend (until the Enlightenment). Plato and his followers have always described the Summum Bonum as something ineffable. Christian mystics transformed this into apophatic theology. The Sufis spoke in paradoxes which shock the mind. That the truth cannot be described is perhaps the central tenet of many Buddhist, Hindu, and Taoist philosophers.
People think that scholarship progresses. It really doesn’t. Instead, people view the past through the fashions of their own historical circumstances. When a radical fashion becomes orthodox, a wealth of new works based on this new fashion emerges. Later, yet another fashion emerges, and those now-old works are discarded. But none of these fashions can guarantee truth. Sometimes more genuine fashions are superceded by substanceless, but flashy fashions.
(If scholarship were capable of discovering truths, then one topic would not give rise to a Marxist, a feminist, and a post-colonial interpretation. These interpretations are all valid in their own ways, but Marxist interpretation perhaps says more about the interpreter than the topic, mutatis mutandis.)
Concerning dentistry and technology in general. As most readers may have guessed, I thoroughly believe in and advocate the efficacy of traditional disciplines. In my mind, modern science cannot be described as an improvement over ancient philosophy. They are simply different, as an orange is from an apple. They have different domains, criteria, methodologies, and purposes. Traditional medicine, for instance, cannot be fused with, subsumed under, or be explained by modern medicine. If this were possible, then the traditional herbalism of Europe and America would already form part of modern medicine. But they aren’t – the underlying paradigms are completely different.
Both traditional and modern medicine are efficacious, but you can’t speak of them together. This is why when modern medicine (based on cells and biochemistry) became predominant, the ancient herbal knowledge of Europe and America retreated into obscurity, and is today unavailable except for a few knowledgeable people.
There’s no improvement. Only changes. Some perhaps object saying that traditional medicine during the Qing dynasty was more sophisticated than it was during the Han dynastry. That may be true, but it says nothing about the efficacy of the healers of the two time periods.
Actually, in the end, there are only two ways – modern science and ancient magic. The various schools of divination, alchemy, traditional medicine, martial arts – ultimately they have their roots in magic. Some say that modern life is more comfortable than ancient life. We have more technological conveniences. Actually, technological conveniences have nothing to do with leisure. The most leisurely people are hunter-gatherers. This is why when first fur-traders in America often went native. The first nations way of life is preferable to the European way of life.
People across all eras are probably around the same level of happiness. Having a TV doesn’t make you happy. Having a TV when your neighbour doesn’t might make you feel good for a while. Magic, for its practitioners, allows advancement in the game of life, and the mastery of fate. Technology doesn’t.
Concerning dentistry, I recall an anecdote from a dentist who was guided by a South American Indian in the Amazons. His guide had a decaying tooth. The dentist was convinced that this tooth could not be saved, even with modern technology. On their way, they met a shaman, who uttered a simple incantation over the guide. One week later, the decay was entirely gone.
Modern technology is efficacious in some aspects, but inefficacious in others. Life in ancient times was good in some aspects, but bad in others. People always view their own parochial fashions as the norm. Reason is deceptive, and always self-justifying. But the sincere seeker discovers that the ancients were not hapless half-wits, as some moderns make them out to be.
(It is true that our life spans have increased, but this isn’t due to modern pharmaceutics. Instead, living conditions have improved, leading to less infant mortality. In ancient times, average life span was shorter mainly because of infant mortality. If you lived passed five, you’ll probably live past forty. Secondly, medical technologies have improved, such that we now have dialysis and pace-makers. These things allow a longer life, but not necessarily a quality of life.
Sincer all things tend to balance out. I strongly suspect we’re heading for some catastrophe, where many lives perish, and lifespan returns to the pre-Industrial norm. Maybe this will take the form of Gaia’s revenge. In Qing China, peace leads to increased lifespan and lower infant mortality, which lead to increased population, which leads to decreased quality of life. Today, China imports much of its food. If somehow food supplies are cut off, the resulting disaster is unthinkable.)

LikeLike