This is a 3-part BBC show. Host Bettany Hughes examines three ancient world changers; Buddha, Socrates, and Confucius. It's a lot of surface work. It's the basics. I found Buddha to be the most enlightening, no pun intended. I would think that Bettany would dig more closely into Socrates' personal life. As for Confucius, the counter to his philosophy is left almost entirely to the last part and it's mostly down to the Cultural Revolution. An hour each for such big figures is not enough but it's fine for an introductory course.
12 Reviews
Questions?
REXNE29 May 2020
A 3 hour summary of 3 game-changing global thinkers
david-161-283902 May 2021
Bettany Hughes presents an engaging rewiew of Buddhismm, Socratic method and Confucianism- The series looks at the historical contect of these three great leaders and also distills the core philosophies into their core essence so that the viewer can appreciate them as much as possible. Ignore the critics - judge for yourself!
Curious Doucmentary That Says Much the Same Thing About Three Very Different Thinkers
l_rawjalaurence5 September 2015
Bettany Hughes's three-part series profiles three very different thinkers - Buddha, Socrates, and Confucius - and assesses the major contribution they have made to different philosophical and religious traditions.
Content-wise, the programs are extremely good: Hughes interviews several experts in Buddhism, classical philosophy, and Confucianism; and visits several of the ancient sites associated with all three of them. Although the arguments are sometimes difficult to follow - especially in the Buddhist program - they are crisply advanced by a presenter who possesses an obvious enthusiasm for her subjects.
And yet there is a strange feeling of similarity about all three programs, despite the diversity of subject-matter. We witness Hughes tramping across various locations in her skirt and long boots - in China and India especially, she looks particularly incongruous when compared to the people surrounding her. This is not really a criticism per se, but it does suggest that all the arguments are filtered through her western consciousness. At the end of each program, she tries to assimilate all three thinkers' ideas into a universalizing paradigm; although very different in conception, they should appeal to "humanity." The effect is to make the programs appear like the visual equivalent of an Introduction to Civilizations course; if we understand what these belief-systems are, we can become more "human" in our world-view. The conflation between universalism and westernization is evident; and reasserted in visual terms through Hughes's ubiquitous presence on screen.
In truth, some of her arguments are a little tenuous. In the Buddha program, she claims that Buddhism could be embraced by merchants, which would seem to equate it with capitalism. Yet one of the central tenets of Buddhism is the need to renounce earthly values and search instead for a spiritual truth. This quality is what renders it to attractive to believers across cultures. M
GENIUS OF THE ANCIENT WORLD is acceptable as an introductory series, but has to be viewed through the ideological prism within which it has been conceived.
Content-wise, the programs are extremely good: Hughes interviews several experts in Buddhism, classical philosophy, and Confucianism; and visits several of the ancient sites associated with all three of them. Although the arguments are sometimes difficult to follow - especially in the Buddhist program - they are crisply advanced by a presenter who possesses an obvious enthusiasm for her subjects.
And yet there is a strange feeling of similarity about all three programs, despite the diversity of subject-matter. We witness Hughes tramping across various locations in her skirt and long boots - in China and India especially, she looks particularly incongruous when compared to the people surrounding her. This is not really a criticism per se, but it does suggest that all the arguments are filtered through her western consciousness. At the end of each program, she tries to assimilate all three thinkers' ideas into a universalizing paradigm; although very different in conception, they should appeal to "humanity." The effect is to make the programs appear like the visual equivalent of an Introduction to Civilizations course; if we understand what these belief-systems are, we can become more "human" in our world-view. The conflation between universalism and westernization is evident; and reasserted in visual terms through Hughes's ubiquitous presence on screen.
In truth, some of her arguments are a little tenuous. In the Buddha program, she claims that Buddhism could be embraced by merchants, which would seem to equate it with capitalism. Yet one of the central tenets of Buddhism is the need to renounce earthly values and search instead for a spiritual truth. This quality is what renders it to attractive to believers across cultures. M
GENIUS OF THE ANCIENT WORLD is acceptable as an introductory series, but has to be viewed through the ideological prism within which it has been conceived.
Bogus
bhuvanchaturvedi6 November 2018
Watched the episode on Buddha and found it thoroughly unenlightening. The Western mind is steeped in the notion of breakthrough conceptual thinking, so Buddha's story is presented in that framework, completely disregarding the various soteriological philosophies and paths of India that pre-date Buddhism and intimately informed and influenced its development. Brahminism is the usual villain, reduced to priests performing rituals, as if that's all to Hinduism, as if before Buddha there were no methods and teaching for liberation, as if the Upanishads, Brahma Sutras etc did not exist. It is clear the presenter neither understands Hinduism nor Buddhism, else she would have known that the paths of Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism are similar to the extent of being almost same, differing only in the ultimate nature of Brahman/Nothingness. The multi-layered story of Buddhism is dumbed down to an extent that may have been forgiven for a movie maker, but not for a historian. Those who really want to learn about the history and development of Buddhism and comparative with Hinduism should go to serious scholars like Edward Conze, Anand Coomaraswamy, Ram Swarup etc rather than waste time with a bogus history and historian here.
Carelessly inaccurate
sumeetsaxena-632493 May 2018
The first episode interviews a woman, Lakshmi Singh about the cultural mileau of the Buddha. The interviewee gives the typical marxist claptrap about the caste system while not even knowing the names of the classes. That is the extent of the knowledge of the experts in this documentary. So cringe worthy that I could not help turning it off and watching a funny cat video instead.
Only Socrates part is informative
tithibharatpatel17 August 2020
In trying to show buddhas journey,dint understand why they kept showing Indian poverty, found no connection of that with the story and that has not been done for Socrates or Confucius.
If wanting to show the country, show the good and bad, India is only shown in bad light.If wanting to show suffering, show for all countries.
Buddha and Confucius episode are low on information
If wanting to show the country, show the good and bad, India is only shown in bad light.If wanting to show suffering, show for all countries.
Buddha and Confucius episode are low on information
Confusing and arrogant narrator
ianmisc2 August 2016
The first episode is basically footage taken from a movie interspersed with a talking head visiting a few random historical sites and filler places
In the second episode the narrator tells us that we need to see Egypt from space in order to understand. You'd think we would see Egypt from space, right? Wrong. We see a talking head blabber on and then randomly jump to a conclusion. The story progression reminds me of Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle
This is hard to watch. It is Hollywood crap. Make a story overly complicated and unfocused and pass it off as grand. This series is nothing but filler
In the second episode the narrator tells us that we need to see Egypt from space in order to understand. You'd think we would see Egypt from space, right? Wrong. We see a talking head blabber on and then randomly jump to a conclusion. The story progression reminds me of Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle
This is hard to watch. It is Hollywood crap. Make a story overly complicated and unfocused and pass it off as grand. This series is nothing but filler
West need to grow and ask for a better understanding of East
mechadios29 October 2020
Western audience need to ask for better informative documentaries or drama if you will. If the producers continue to harp on the cliched narrative of cast hierarchy and fancy the roamance of Indian proverty sadly it would be the audience which will be the loser.
Bettany falls for the same cliched beaten down path nothing much to offer in terms of content but a clever effort to hide that incompetence behind the colorful india.
Bettany falls for the same cliched beaten down path nothing much to offer in terms of content but a clever effort to hide that incompetence behind the colorful india.
Lame and poorly researched, if at all.
sannatwrites30 January 2022
So, they decided to shoot the opening scene in Calcutta, show some people bathing on streets, some suffering = poverty, a garbage picker. Cliche. Why Calcutta? A city Buddha never reached because it didn't exist in his time.
Followed by age old Brahmin-bashing, tradition-hating- using the narrative of biased writers. To quote her question " iS this different way of living (rich-poor) affecting how people feel about their lives?" "Yes, absolutely " replies the professor.
Umm, yes ladies,it affects all countries today and has been so since the beginning of time. But sure go ahead and make a monster out of the culture, using a one sided, zero insightful narrative.
Followed by age old Brahmin-bashing, tradition-hating- using the narrative of biased writers. To quote her question " iS this different way of living (rich-poor) affecting how people feel about their lives?" "Yes, absolutely " replies the professor.
Umm, yes ladies,it affects all countries today and has been so since the beginning of time. But sure go ahead and make a monster out of the culture, using a one sided, zero insightful narrative.
Terrible Host
louispeter-2305712 June 2021
Could be much better.
toitoy28 February 2021
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
