Print Page | Close Window

Pre-Socratic Philosophy

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: General History
Forum Name: Alternative History
Forum Discription: Discussion of Unorthodox Historical Theories & Approaches
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=25556
Printed Date: 27-Apr-2024 at 19:23
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Pre-Socratic Philosophy
Posted By: Guests
Subject: Pre-Socratic Philosophy
Date Posted: 30-Sep-2008 at 04:06
i really enjoyed this article from paul: http://www.allempires.com/article/index.php?q=beware_greeks

what if pre-socratic philosophy had become the dominant propeller of greco-roman civilization? what if power-hungry monotheisms never became state-religions? what if alexandria hadn't been destroyed?

ubine eramus sumus?


Replies:
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 20-Oct-2008 at 11:48
It is funny, but terribly inaccurate. A monotheism with Greek philosophy flavor was invented, or perhaps better said, anticipated before Socrates and Plato. For instance, Paul painted Xenophanes ridiculing polytheism (that Ethiopian gods are black, Thracian gods have red hair, etc.) but didn't follow him where Xenophanes concluded there must be a greater god than all these "lesser gods", universal, unchaning, absolute, etc.
 
A part of the polytheistic panthenon was already part of the state religion, and actually religion was deeply entwined with the political developments since we first have evidence for the latter.
 
The destruction of Alexandrian library is largely mythical, i.e. there was a destruction but it was not that large as commonly pictured. Read the debunking here: http://www.aps-pub.com/proceedings/1464/403.pdf - http://www.aps-pub.com/proceedings/1464/403.pdf
 
ubine eramus sumus
eramus or sumus? Wink
 

Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 21-Oct-2008 at 14:43
Originally posted by Chilbudios

It is funny, but terribly inaccurate. A monotheism with Greek philosophy flavor was invented, or perhaps better said, anticipated before Socrates and Plato. For instance, Paul painted Xenophanes ridiculing polytheism (that Ethiopian gods are black, Thracian gods have red hair, etc.) but didn't follow him where Xenophanes concluded there must be a greater god than all these "lesser gods", universal, unchaning, absolute, etc.Wink
There was no such a thing as monotheism in ancient Greek philosophy, neither Presocratic, nor Postsocratic. You confuse monotheism with monism. Xenophanes never said prayers to that "greater god", if he ever said prayers he said them to the "lesser" gods.

Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 21-Oct-2008 at 15:12
Originally posted by Sahrian

There was no such a thing as monotheism in ancient Greek philosophy, neither Presocratic, nor Postsocratic. You confuse monotheism with monism. Xenophanes never said prayers to that "greater god", if he ever said prayers he said them to the "lesser" gods.
 
Monism is the belief that all the world phenonema are explainable by a single essential principle. Monotheism is the belief (it does not require prayers as you wrongly assume) that there's only one (true) god.
 
Xenophanes states there's a greatest god among all gods. Check here:   http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/xenophanes/ - http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/xenophanes/  section 3.  Look at these verses:
 
One god greatest among gods and men,
 not at all like mortals in body or in thought
 
which are further characterized as a "pioneering expression of monotheism"!.
 
His position is perhaps not truly monotheistic (as we understand the concept today) - there are several gods, but one is greatest than them all -, however I find it somewhat similar with the Old Testament type of monotheism (there were several gods but the god of the Jews was most important, most powerful among them all, he was the one true god).
 
 
However, in post-Socratic Greek philosophy there is certainly monotheism. Christian doctrine is largely Greek philosophy around some Near East mythological themes, it is syncretism as scholars of religion call it. But we should also note that there were numerous Christian sects and branches whose beliefs are hard to be qualified as monotheistic (one example: Cerinthius in 2nd century AD held that the god-creator of the world is not the god of the Old Testament).

Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 21-Oct-2008 at 15:46

Originally posted by Chilbudios

Monism is the belief that all the world phenonema are explainable by a single essential principle. Monotheism is the belief (it does not require prayers as you wrongly assume) that there's only one (true) god.

MONISM is the belief that all being derive(ontologicaly) from only one principle. The ancient Greek monist philosophers called that principle "the God" (ho theos) in order to lay emphasis on its absolute ontological precedence. This doesn't mean that they were "monotheists".

MONOTHEISM is the belief that there is only one personal god, object of worship.

It doesn't make sense to play with the meaning of the terms, they are already established at a level higher than Wikipedia or whichever online article. FYO, in philosophy "monotheism" doesn't exist, "monotheism" is exclusively a RELIGIOUS phenomenon, its philosophical equivalent is called "monistic theism".

Was Adi Shankara "monotheist"?

Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 21-Oct-2008 at 15:54
Originally posted by Sahrian

MONISM is the belief that all being derive(ontologicaly) from only one principle. The ancient Greek monist philosophers called that principle "the God" (ho theos) in order to lay emphasis on its absolute ontological precedence. This doesn't mean that they were "monotheists".

MONOTHEISM is the belief that there is only one personal god, object of worship.

It doesn't make sense to play with the meaning of the terms, they are already established at a level higher than Wikipedia or whichever online article. FYO, in philosophy "monotheism" doesn't exist, "monotheism" is exclusively a RELIGIOUS phenomenon, its philosophical equivalent is called "monistic theism".

You gotta be kidding. First, learn the terms and stop inventing meanings (not all Greek called that principle God / "theos", worship is not necessary to call a belief monotheistic, I did not call all the monist pre-Socratics monotheists, etc. you're simply making things up). Second, that page is not Wikipedia it is Stanford's Encyclopedia of Philosophy ( http://plato.stanford.edu/about.html - http://plato.stanford.edu/about.html   http://www.stanford.edu/ - http://www.stanford.edu/  ). And last but not at least, read the texts.
 
If you have any doubts about the scholarly nature of calling Xenophanes' belief monotheistic (or discussing it, however few flatly denying it), check these results:
http://books.google.com/books?q=xenophanes+monotheism - http://books.google.com/books?q=xenophanes+monotheism
 
I guess so many scholars are "confused" like I am. And then I can say I'm proud to share this "flaw" with them.
 

Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 21-Oct-2008 at 16:18
Originally posted by Chilbudios

You gotta be kidding. First, learn the terms and stop inventing meanings (not all Greek called that principle God / "theos", worship is not necessary to call a belief monotheistic, I did not call all the monist pre-Socratics monotheists, etc. you're simply making things up). Second, that page is not Wikipedia it is Stanford's Encyclopedia of Philosophy ( http://plato.stanford.edu/about.html - http://plato.stanford.edu/about.html   http://www.stanford.edu/ - http://www.stanford.edu/  ). And last but not at least, read the texts.
Perhaps today is not your best day.
1. I didn't say that you called all the ancient Greek monist philosophers "monotheists", I just wanted to show you what you have to understand by "ho theos" when you read ancient Greek philosophical texts. Worship is not necessary, the belief that that "only one" god is PERSONAL, is necessary, and as a PERSON it is potentially object of worship. Or perhaps do you think that pantheism is a form of monotheism?
2. "Stanford's Encyclopedia of Philosophy" is full of confusions and mistakes. Asks those who know what's all about. I don't send you to read books, I just ask you  to be more selective in the books you read, in case you can't find a better encyclopedia than Stanford's, drink direct from the source, so speaking.
And please believe me that I have many other things to do than wasting my time in such sterile polemics. 

Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 21-Oct-2008 at 16:37

1.  "Ho theos" has different meanings in different texts. Xenophanes formula is "greatest god among gods" (do you read this as "greatest One among Ones" or "greatest principle among principles"?) and the second verse brings clarifications "in body or in thought". Actually Xenophanes clearly defines his entity as a god (read some of those books, several of them make a clear case that Xenophanes' god was not just another instance of a pre-Socratic One). Xenophanes' view is not pantheistic (his super-god acts upon Earth, for instance). If you don't read the texts, discussing philosophy with you is like hammering a nail into glass.

Monotheistic is not necessarily personal, because not all monotheistic beliefs presuppose an anthropomorphic entity. Perhaps you should check a dictionary before venturing in definitions: http://mw1.m-w.com/dictionary/monotheism - http://mw1.m-w.com/dictionary/monotheism  (personal, for worship are not necessary attributes). Perhaps you have something against Merriam Webster, here's the definition from my Oxford Dictionary of Current English (new revised edition published in 1998): "monotheism - n. doctrine that there is only one god". Again your attributes are not part of the definition, and thus it's safe to conclude your definition is a made up one.
 
2. SEP is a good enough resource. Those books are good enough. Most of the authors have the necessary education and expertise to say something on this topic. You provided absolutely no bibliographical reference to support your far-fetched views, but a cheap attack on semantics.
 
It is you who started this polemic. If it is sterile, it is not entirely my fault - it takes two to tango.
 
 

Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 21-Oct-2008 at 17:06

Originally posted by Chilbudios

1.  "Ho theos" has different meanings in different texts. Xenophanes formula is "greatest god among gods" (do you read this as "greatest One among Ones" or "greatest principles among principles"?) and the second verse brings clarifications "in body or in thought". Actually Xenophanes clearly defines his entity as a god (read some of those books, several of them make a clear case that Xenophanes' god was not just another instance of a pre-Socratic One). Xenophanes' view is not pantheistic (his super-god acts upon Earth, for instance). If you don't read the texts, discussing philosophy with you is like hammering a nail into glass.

Which is the source of your Xenophanes quote? I ask you because in the collection of fragments I have available there is no such a quote.  Xenophanes is not pantheist (as he is not "monotheist") and no doubt that Xenophanes defines it as "the God", the problem is what he meant by "the God". BTW can you find a fragment in which Xenophanes considers himself as "monotheist"? Something in which he says: "there is only one god: the God, the rest are 'demons' or invented by humans"?Tongue

Monotheistic is not necessarily personal, because not all monotheistic beliefs presuppose an anthropomorphic entity. Perhaps you should check a dictionary before venturing in definitions: http://mw1.m-w.com/dictionary/monotheism - http://mw1.m-w.com/dictionary/monotheism (personal, for worship are not necessary attributes). 

Let's be more strict in the sources quoted. Do you think that you could argue about the philosophical meaning of terms quoting DEX?
 
2. SEP is a good enough resource. Those books are good enough. Most of the authors have the necessary education and expertise to say something on this topic. You provided absolutely no bibliographical reference to support your far-fetched views, but a cheap attack on semantics.
SEP has many poor articles. This is a fact. If you believe it or not, this your business, not mine. Anyway you lack "the information" to judge the things.  To what books did you refer?

Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 21-Oct-2008 at 17:48
Originally posted by Sahrian

Which is the source of your Xenophanes quote? I ask you because in the collection of fragments I have available there is no such a quote.  Xenophanes is not pantheist (as he is not "monotheist") and no doubt that Xenophanes defines it as "the God", the problem is what he meant by "the God".
I'm not gonna tell you which is the source, because I already provided a small bibliography and you have known the source (the fragment, in one of those books you'll find even the Greek text) if you have read them. However, you already dismissed them en masse. How could you do that if you haven't read them?
 
BTW can you find a fragment in which Xenophanes considers himself as "monotheist"? Something in which he sais: "there is only one god: the God, the rest are 'demons' or invented by humans"?
Well, this is close to what Xenophanes says if you put all those fragments together. But, according to your own sayings, you haven't read enough of Xenophanes, so how can you assess Xenophanes' philosophy?
 
Let's be more strict in the sources quoted. Do you think that you could argue about the philosophical meaning of terms quoting DEX?
You earlier claimed "monotheism" is not a philosophical term: 'FYO (sic!), in philosophy "monotheism" doesn't exist'.
 
However, yes dictionary often give the correct meaning, and moreover, a word like monotheism is part also of informal discourses. Let's note you haven't quoted any source at all to support your definitions or any opinion or judgement.
 
SEP has many poor articles. This is a fact. If you believe it or not, this your business, not mine.
It's not a matter of belief, but a matter of arguments. You lack also arguments, also bibliography, therefore your verdicts say more about you, and not about the institutions or the scholars you denigrate.
 
 Anyway you lack "the information" to judge the things.  To what books did you refer?
These two sentences are amusing in themselves, forming an inconsistent discourse.
Apparently I know of Xenophanes texts you don't know of, I have read scholarship on Xenophanes you haven't, yet you're seem to have a propensity to judge things ("SEP has many poor articles. This is a fact." or even that I lack information, though demonstrably you don't know much about me).
 

Posted By: Yiannis
Date Posted: 21-Oct-2008 at 18:07
Guys, there's no point in engaging in polemic mood. You make interesting points and I'm sure you can have a more meaningful discussion by avoiding becoming too personal.
 
What do  you think about the notion that Polytheism is more "inclusive" or "democratic" than Monotheism? For example in monotheism the believers usually discredit other Gods apart for their own (Islam, Christianity, Jewism). In Polytheistic religions there's usually no problem in adding another god to the already existing Pantheon. For example the cult of Isis grew in Greece in addition to the traditional Greek Gods and not in contest with them.
 


-------------
The basis of a democratic state is liberty. Aristotle, Politics

Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin

Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 21-Oct-2008 at 18:18
What do  you think about the notion that Polytheism is more "inclusive" or "democratic" than Monotheism? For example in monotheism the believers usually discredit other Gods apart for their own (Islam, Christianity, Jewism). In Polytheistic religions there's usually no problem in adding another god to the already existing Pantheon. For example the cult of Isis grew in Greece in addition to the traditional Greek Gods and not in contest with them.
Well, I guess that depends on what is understood by 'democracy'. If it is a "tyranny of the majority" type of concept I guess monotheism can be regarded 'democractic' if it is the result of the will of the most people in that community. If it is a "individual freedom" type of concept, then obviously polytheism would be the 'demoractic' choice.
 
However polytheism was not tolerant to the extreme. For instance in the polytheistic ancient Rome there were some religious persecutions - e.g. against Bachanalia in the early 2nd century BC, or against druidic rites during early Imperial period.

Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 21-Oct-2008 at 18:19

Originally posted by Chilbudios

I'm not gonna tell you which is the source, because I already provided a small bibliography and you have known the source (the fragment, in one of those books you'll find even the Greek text) if you have read them. However, you already dismissed them en masse. How could you do that if you haven't read them?

Better you'd do!

Well, this is close to what Xenophanes says if you put all those fragments together. But, according to your own sayings, you haven't read enough of Xenophanes, so how can you assess Xenophanes' philosophy?
You are bulls***ing, 'please' tell us which is  the source of your quote before anything else.
 
You earlier claimed "monotheism" is not a philosophical term: 'FYO (sic!), in philosophy "monotheism" doesn't exist'.
 
However, yes dictionary often give the correct meaning, and moreover, a word like monotheism is part also of informal discourses. Let's note you haven't quoted any source at all to support your definitions or any opinion or judgement.
I don't edit my posts as much as you do (regarding 'FYO').
Do you have an idea who writes those language explicative dictionaries? I don't have the need to quote any book, when you'll be more mature (intellectually) you'll understand why.
 
It's not a matter of belief, but a matter of arguments. You lack also arguments, also bibliography, therefore your verdicts say more about you, and not about the institutions or the scholars you denigrate.
Which were your arguments? Which is your bibliography? Please quote, is like a visiting card.
 
Apparently I know of Xenophanes texts you don't know of, I have read scholarship on Xenophanes you haven't, yet you're seem to have a propensity to judge things.
 
Bulls**t!!! You didn't show anything else until now excepting that you are stubborn. And BTW, you really don't know to whom are you talking.

Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 21-Oct-2008 at 18:20
Aristotle (post Socratic) sometimes refers to God in the singular, sometimes to gods in the plural. Putting too much stress on the detailed interpretation of texts gets nowhere, because the writers involved weren't interested in being that precise.

-------------

Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 21-Oct-2008 at 18:28

Better you'd do!

You are bulls***ing, 'please' tell us which is  the source of your quote before anything else.
Which 'us'? You're the only one begging for it and if you're not showing decency and true interest in this discussion (starting with reading my links before dismissing them), I don't see why would I feed furthermore trolling?
 
I don't edit my posts as much as you do (regarding 'FYO').
Funny, as far as I can tell all your posts in this thread are edited. But the sic! was not an argument for anything, it's just a convention when quoting, so do not worry about that one.
 
Do you have an idea who writes those language explicative dictionaries?
There's a collective of people (usually including some scholars for technical terms). What's your point?
 
I don't have the need to quote any book, when you'll be more mature (intellectually) you'll understand why.
And anti-intelectualism (the no-need-for-books symptom) and know-it-all stances are a sign of intellectual maturity? Or the continous thread of ad hominems?
 
Which were your arguments? Which is your bibliography? Please quote, is like a visiting card.
I already linked a bibliography. Your questions make no sense (you haven't realized that both links contain a consistent list of books dealing with the topic??)
 
Bulls**t!!! You didn't show anything else until now excepting that you are hard-headed. And BTW, you really don't know to whom are you talking
Considering the apotheotic ending, I'm reporting you for this outburst. And I will do again in similar circumstances.
 
 

Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 21-Oct-2008 at 19:18
Originally posted by Chilbudios

Better you'd do!

You are bulls***ing, 'please' tell us which is  the source of your quote before anything else.
Which 'us'? You're the only one begging for it and if you're not showing decency and true interest in this discussion (starting with reading my links before dismissing them), I don't see why would I feed furthermore trolling?
 
I don't edit my posts as much as you do (regarding 'FYO').
Funny, as far as I can tell all your posts in this thread are edited. But the sic! was not an argument for anything, it's just a convention when quoting, so do not worry about that one.
 
Do you have an idea who writes those language explicative dictionaries?
There's a collective of people (usually including some scholars for technical terms). What's your point?
 
I don't have the need to quote any book, when you'll be more mature (intellectually) you'll understand why.
And anti-intelectualism (the no-need-for-books symptom) and know-it-all stances are a sign of intellectual maturity? Or the continous thread of ad hominems?
 
Which were your arguments? Which is your bibliography? Please quote, is like a visiting card.
I already linked a bibliography. Your questions make no sense (you haven't realized that both links contain a consistent list of books dealing with the topic??)
 
Bulls**t!!! You didn't show anything else until now excepting that you are hard-headed. And BTW, you really don't know to whom are you talking
Considering the apotheotic ending, I'm reporting you for this outburst. And I will do again in similar circumstances.
 
 

Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 21-Oct-2008 at 19:28

"Us" meanig those who happen to read this thread.

Chilbudios, your reaction betrays you, you are still too childish to face a serious discussion. BTW you didn't understand my  irony regarding the books.  But I'm sure that with "the age" you will be better prepared. I'm really bored by this thread and I have no choice but to retire, so take this as my last post in this thread. Indeed Xenophanes was monotheist or a precursor of monotheism.Big%20smile  You know indeed what philosophy means. Big%20smile You....won! Big%20smile

Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 21-Oct-2008 at 19:45
Originally posted by Sahrian

"Us" meanig those who happens to read this thread.

Chilbudios, your reaction betrays you, you are still too childish to face a serious discussion. But I'm sure that with "the age" you will be better prepared. I'm really bored by this thread and I have no choice but to retire, so take this as my last post in this thread. Indeed Xenophanes was monotheist or a precursor of monotheism.You are smart indeed. You....won!
Well, I would say that childish is to consider that in a discussion people win or lose. At worst they lose time, at best they win anyway by learning or even polishing their intellect while building rational arguments.
 
To assess Xenophanes' beliefs one should read his texts, or (and, preferably) scholarly interpretations. Some of these both can be found in those links. And also the answers to questions asked with no intention to discuss, but to disagree.
 
In any eventuality, here's for the lazy ones. From http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/xenophanes/ - http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/xenophanes/  
 
Section 1: "Diels-Kranz (DK) provides 45 fragments of his poetry (although B4, 13, 19, 20, 21 and 41 would be more accurately classified as testimonia), ranging from the 24 lines of B1 to the single-word fragments of B21a, 39, and 40. A number of the ‘sympotic poems’ (poems for drinking parties) (B1-3, 5, 6, 22, and the imitation in C2) were preserved by Athenaeus, while the remarks on the nature of the divine were quoted by Clement (B14-16 and 23), Sextus Empiricus (B11, 12, and 24), and Simplicius (B25 and 26). "
 
Section 3: "Of the positive characterizations of the divine made in B23-26, perhaps the most fundamental is B23:
 
One god greatest among gods and men,
not at all like mortals in body or in thought."
 
Bibliography section: "Diels, H. and W. Kranz, 1952, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker (in three volumes), 6th edition, Dublin and Zurich: Weidmann, Volume I, Chapter 21, 113-39 (Greek texts of the fragments and testimonia with translations of the fragments in German)."
 
Reading can be such a difficult task sometimes ... 
 
 
Now turnin on those "mysterious books" (actually that list of books I retrieved from Google Books and linked earlier in this thread):
 
http://books.google.com/books?id=888UAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA67 - http://books.google.com/books?id=888UAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA67  (on the god of Xenophanes plus the passage rendered in Greek)
http://books.google.com/books?id=IfinZEES6uYC&pg=PA6 - http://books.google.com/books?id=IfinZEES6uYC&pg=PA6  (a short article on Xenophanes, check also p. 5)
http://books.google.com/books?id=LxxJXTviacgC&pg=PA98 - http://books.google.com/books?id=LxxJXTviacgC&pg=PA98  (a commentary on this fragment - see p. 96-97 for the text and philological notes, the interpretation starts at the end of p. 97 and continues on the other pages)
http://books.google.com/books?id=T8PD7j0NV0cC&pg=PA23 - http://books.google.com/books?id=T8PD7j0NV0cC&pg=PA23  - on Xenophanes' monotheism
 
and so on, consider this as a head start, you can check for yourself more books and form your own opinions.
 
 
 
 
 

Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 21-Oct-2008 at 20:00
Where the F**K is your anterior quote and who the F**K gives you here the power to edit others posts?

"One god greatest among gods and men,
not at all like mortals in body or in thought."
is indeed a fragment of Xenophanes the meaning of which you can't understand. What means for you "One god greatest among gods and men", "monotheism"? It is exactly what I've told you at the beginning!!! Better  go to your history books and leave alone those who know philosophy. Do you really think that you already understand phylosophy if you've searched pathetically the net today? Did you answer at least to one of my questions?
 

Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 21-Oct-2008 at 20:09
Originally posted by Sahrian

Where the F**K is your anterior quote and who the F**K gives you here the power to edit others posts?

"One god greatest among gods and men,
not at all like mortals in body or in thought."
is indeed a fragment of Xenophanes the meaning of which you can't understand. What means for you "One god greatest among gods and men", "monotheism"? It is exactly what I've told you at the beginning!!! Better  go to your history books and leave alone those who know philosophy. Do you really think that you already understand phylosophy if you've searched pathetically the net today? Did you answer at least to one of my questions?
If I reckon correctly, I have answered all your questions (with my previous reply also your questions about sources and books), some of them before you even asked them. For instance to "what means for you ... ?" here is your answer, composed entirely from my earlier replies (emphases added with italics, since obviously you haven't noticed those words the first time you read them, if you read them):
 
" A monotheism with Greek philosophy flavor was invented, or perhaps better said, anticipated before Socrates and Plato" and "Xenophanes concluded there must be a greater god than all these "lesser gods""
 
"His position is perhaps not truly monotheistic (as we understand the concept today) - there are several gods, but one is greatest than them all -, however I find it somewhat similar with the Old Testament type of monotheism (there were several gods but the god of the Jews was most important, most powerful among them all, he was the one true god)."
 
Like I suspected, working myself to extract the information from the materials you already rejected only prompted more trolling from your side. Do not worry, I reported you again. Take it as a friendly advice: drop this attitude.
 
As for what I know or know not, the chronology of discussion shows that I first enounced my position (i.e. Xenophanes holding this view) and then I brought the evidence. It's true you can't say when I learned of Xenophanes holding this view, but certainly that proves there are no grounds for your accusations.
 
 
 

Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 04-Nov-2008 at 18:33
Sahrian pipe it down with the profanity. Plus those outside of the AE staff do not have the ability to edit another's post. For your information whenever a post is actually edited the editors name will be shown in the post itself. From what I see the only person editing your posts are you yourself. However, members do have the ability to edit quotes once they use them in their own posts. Maybe that is what you have been talking about. Going back to my first sentence, we do encourage you to read the Codes of Conduct.
 
If you have issues then pm one of the AE staff and we will review your concerns.


-------------

Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 05-Nov-2008 at 08:26
Originally posted by Seko

Sahrian pipe it down with the profanity. Plus those outside of the AE staff do not have the ability to edit another's post. For your information whenever a post is actually edited the editors name will be shown in the post itself. From what I see the only person editing your posts are you yourself. However, members do have the ability to edit quotes once they use them in their own posts. Maybe that is what you have been talking about. Going back to my first sentence, we do encourage you to read the Codes of Conduct.
If you have issues then pm one of the AE staff and we will review your concerns.
I agree that I was wrong when I talked about the editing of my post, the anger simply clouded my mind.  But what sense it makes to revive this thread after such a long time? Seko, you are off-topic, if you wanted to express your feelings about my profanity you should have sent me a PM.
I have no need to read the Codes of Conduct. The forum is too low quality for my taste. When I registered I expected something better, but unfortunately there are less than ten posters in the entire forum who really know what they are talking about. Feel free to ban me, as I have no intention to post here again.

Posted By: Yiannis
Date Posted: 05-Nov-2008 at 09:41
Originally posted by Sahrian

   Feel free to ban me, as I have no intention to post here again.
 
We're all devastated by your decision. So you're now banned (just in case you had second thoughts about posting here again).


-------------
The basis of a democratic state is liberty. Aristotle, Politics

Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin

Posted By: Soren Svendsen
Date Posted: 05-Nov-2008 at 13:22
Originally posted by Aeolus

i really enjoyed this article from paul: http://www.allempires.com/article/index.php?q=beware_greeks

what if pre-socratic philosophy had become the dominant propeller of greco-roman civilization? what if power-hungry monotheisms never became state-religions? what if alexandria hadn't been destroyed?

ubine eramus sumus?
 
You and I would not have been born ;)
 
No really. Religion was still are huge part of society and was already playing a central social role. Things would of course had been different, but there would probably still had been power-driven religious groups, or spiritual leaders. Alexandria would probably also at one or other time either been destroyed or just 'fallen in grace' as a centre of learning. The spiritual dogmatic levels of the hermes of Egypt was on the same level as the early christian fathers, and the hermetic divinity was polytheistic. However Garth Fowden make a good argument for the special power-abilities of the monotheistic creeds in creating authority.
 
What would the world have been without the monotheistics religions and their more or less 'divine right'? It would have been different. Would the philosophical ideas of the pre-socratic experienced the same hault of development. Some historians has argued that the pre-socratic philosophy was already experiencing a hault before christianity began to flex muscles. So... As with most speculative historical thoughts it's difficult to say. There can be argued for several diverse directions.

Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 05-Nov-2008 at 14:26

Back to the topic, for me at least, the value of Pre-Socratic phylosophy is in its "scientific" approach. For the first time in human history, thinkers started a naturalistic approach to understand the world. That's what is more remarkable of this period.

For instance:
Tales introduced the search for the first substance.
Pythagoras established that mathematics was the key to understand the world (Idea we still have)
Democritus was the first to develop the concept of a material world.
 
Etc.
 
I just wonder what would the world had been if superstition hadn't stopped that spark of science. Perhaps we would had spared the Middle Ages' and we had already reached the stars (I copied that idea from Carl Sagan)
 
 
 
 
 
 


-------------

Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 06-Nov-2008 at 01:04
Originally posted by pinguin

Back to the topic, for me at least, the value of Pre-Socratic phylosophy is in its "scientific" approach. For the first time in human history, thinkers started a naturalistic approach to understand the world. That's what is more remarkable of this period.

For instance:
Tales introduced the search for the first substance.
Pythagoras established that mathematics was the key to understand the world (Idea we still have)
Democritus was the first to develop the concept of a material world.
 
Etc.
 
I just wonder what would the world had been if superstition hadn't stopped that spark of science. Perhaps we would had spared the Middle Ages' and we had already reached the stars (I copied that idea from Carl Sagan)
Though I agree largely with your presentation, I believe it deserves few more nuances. Of coures, the pre-Socractic philosophers were remarkable men for their times, but we must not forget they were men of their times. I do not remember for the moment any earlier manifestation of this naturalistic approach so this looks like a innovation they brought (and the circumstances favored it, the Greek colonies were rather cosmopolite and their intellectuals tasted an openess probably hard to find in the more theocratic civilizations from Mesopotamia or Egypt), but otherwise many of their theories or ideas were express earlier. A cosmogony with a first substance was already known to the civilizations of the Near and Middle East (for instance, the primordial waters of the Egyptians, Nun), the magical value of numbers also existed (especially in Egypt), also tendencies to monism or pantheism (or monotheism).
 
I don't think Carl Sagan has a fair perspective. The European Middle Ages (and I'm not even considering for the moment the religious Islamic civilizations) understood this approach at least from 12th century (through Christian scholars like Adelard of Bath, Willhem of Conches, Thierry of Chartres, and of course, Abelard), if not earlier. Some pre-Socractic philosophers like Pythagoras were known all along, along with other thinkers of the Antiquity and Late Antiquity (Lucretius with his De Rerum Natura, Seneca with Naturales Quaestiones, Boethius, etc.).
 

Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 06-Nov-2008 at 01:23
I tend to agree with Sagan, particularly when I read about the ideas of Democritus. What a genious! Pythagoras and its number theory, although of mystic roots, imprint a style that still exist in Physics and Mathematics. That time is so wonderful that it is amazing how man lost the path going to hyper-humanistic phylosophies and back to religion and superstition.
The rational mind died even before the Hellenistic civilization declined.


-------------

Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 06-Nov-2008 at 02:10
Originally posted by pinguin

I tend to agree with Sagan, particularly when I read about the ideas of Democritus. What a genious! Pythagoras and its number theory, although of mystic roots, imprint a style that still exist in Physics and Mathematics. That time is so wonderful that it is amazing how man lost the path going to hyper-humanistic phylosophies and back to religion and superstition.
The rational mind died even before the Hellenistic civilization declined.
It was not at all that way, but feel free to believe what you like. The anti-religious agenda and the myths of a golden age will not die too soon. Wink

Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 06-Nov-2008 at 02:29
Yeap. It may be an idea which is part of an anti-religious agenda. However, you should know I am agnostic and I agree with Carl Sagan's ideas in this topicWink

-------------

Posted By: Soren Svendsen
Date Posted: 06-Nov-2008 at 08:49
Originally posted by Chilbudios

It was not at all that way, but feel free to believe what you like. The anti-religious agenda and the myths of a golden age will not die too soon. Wink
 
No of course it was not. The mystics have had their fair share in every period. And Pythagoras was indeed a mystic (or at least his followers ascribing treatise in his name to give it a dogmatic fealing :) ). But is it anti-religious to consider that the period from the 5 century BCE to the to app. 2 century CE was somehow more productive? And that spirituality did it's fair share to hault the progress. As mentioned above we have the hermetics, (neo-)pythagoreans, followers of Arististotle and (neo-)platonist, jews and christians who alle start to give the different treatise a more dogmatic fealing. The Jews and Christians ascribing parts of the philosophers to be something derived from the holy books, and therefore (dogmatic) correct; the hermetics ascribing treatise to the gods, pythagoreans making Pythagoras as a prophet and hence making his work dogmatic, and almost likewise for the (neo-)platonists and the followers of Aristotle. And furthermore with the rise of the different powerdriven sects of the first centuries of the Common Era we have more and more young people being driven/lured into theology instead of philosophy and science.
 
Is it anti-religious (-spiritual), no it's historical.

Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 06-Nov-2008 at 10:51
Pinguin, here's a reassessment of Pythagoras:
 
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n04/burn02_.html - http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n04/burn02_.html
 
Hyper-humanistic philosophy, you say? Big%20smile
 
Originally posted by Soren Svendsen

But is it anti-religious to consider that the period from the 5 century BCE to the to app. 2 century CE was somehow more productive?
No, that would be a simple fact, though with a retrospective bias (productive in what regard? what we'd consider valueable with our 21th century minds for our 21st century goals?)
 
furthermore with the rise of the different powerdriven sects of the first centuries of the Common Era we have more and more young people being driven/lured into theology instead of philosophy and science.
Not entirely true. The early philosophy and science had a great deal of dogmatism. The ancient Greek philosophers (and that is true also for the pre-Socratic ones) travelled to Egypt to learn the secrets of the Egyptian priests. Egypt and Mesopotamia were usually held in that era as centers of great wisdom. Many ancient writers considered their predecessors authoritative and many claims were held based rather on the respect they had for these authorities, instead of real proofs. Of course, I'm not denying that some part of the knowledge had an empirical basis, I'm not deying that in this period the foundation of what we call philosophy or mathematics or logic was established but if we take a look at the entire picture, a large part of it (possibly most of it) didn't.
"Dogma" is a Greek word which initially meant "opinion", and ironically the dogmatism (in this pair of word and meaning) was born in the Greek philosophy. Christianity inherited a good deal of its intellectual dogmatism from the Greek tradition of authorities. "He said so" was often a good enough argument if "he" was held in high regard.
And beyond that, there was an inherent limitation of Greek thinking: there were certain aesthetic principles and cosmological principles (like axioms or postulates today, if you want) which prevented further progress. They'd have needed what we call today a paradigm shift.  
 
On the other hand, the lack of interest in "science" (we can hardly speak of science as we know it today for that era) it is rather pragmatical. For most people it was next to useless. They couldn't prevent earthquakes, they couldn't fight most of the epidemics, they couldn't prevent most of the violence. Life was often rough and short. The interest in scholarship was bound more or less with having a satisfactory and worryless life. Then after the social and economic turmoil from the Late Antiquity, is it really to wonder than instead of musing on philosophy people were more concerned how to feed their families or fight against threats (have you noticed that a large part of the Christian saints are actually military saints)? Religions and religious beliefs are often stories of survival, spirituality is often a method of social cohesion. Without these, certainly there would have been another history, but I'm not sure it would have been the one Pinguin imagines.

Posted By: Soren Svendsen
Date Posted: 06-Nov-2008 at 11:12
Originally posted by Chilbudios

 
Originally posted by Soren Svendsen

But is it anti-religious to consider that the period from the 5 century BCE to the to app. 2 century CE was somehow more productive?
 
No, that would be a simple fact, though with a retrospective bias (productive in what regard? what we'd consider valueable with our 21th century minds for our 21st century goals?)
 
It's not necissarely a consideration of what our 21th century minds find valuable. It's within the discourse of history of science. Of course one could start an argument about what exactly science is.
 
furthermore with the rise of the different powerdriven sects of the first centuries of the Common Era we have more and more young people being driven/lured into theology instead of philosophy and science.
Not entirely true. The early philosophy and science had a great deal of dogmatism. The ancient Greek philosophers (and that is true also for the pre-Socratic ones) travelled to Egypt to learn the secrets of the Egyptian priests. Egypt and Mesopotamia were usually held in that era as centers of great wisdom. Many ancient writers considered their predecessors authoritative and many claims were held based rather on the respect they had for these authorities, instead of real proofs.
 
I do not disagree :) But it was a matter of degree in my opinion, and I would say that the emphasis on dogmatism became more strong later.
 
Of course, I'm not denying that some part of the knowledge had an empirical basis, I'm not deying that in this period the foundation of what we call philosophy or mathematics or logic was established but if we take a look at the entire picture, a large part of it (possibly most of it) didn't.
 
The last part has to be speculative. And it is possible that some later writers contributed to construct an image of a 'free' science.
  
On the other hand, the lack of interest in "science" (we can hardly speak of science as we know it today for that era) it is rather pragmatical. For most people it was next to useless. They couldn't prevent earthquakes, they couldn't fight most of the epidemics, they couldn't prevent most of the violence. Life was often rough and short. The interest in scholarship was bound more or less with having a satisfactory and worryless life. Then after the social and economic turmoil from the Late Antiquity, is it really to wonder than instead of musing on philosophy people were more concerned how to feed their families or fight against threats (have you noticed that a large part of the Christian saints are actually military saints)? Religions and religious beliefs are often stories of survival, spirituality is often a method of social cohesion. Without these, certainly there would have been another history, but I'm not sure it would have been the one Pinguin imagines.
 
The question of interest is an important element. Some of the greek and roman philosophers, physicians did argue that people should uphold their profession for the interest. Of course the case that much of the natural philosophy, physics etc. did not have much practical outcome, made it the harder for people to keep interested. Astrology, astronomy, mathematics, and medicine however seemed still to persuade a fair amount of student because it had some practical value. But on the other side it should also be said that with the rise of the different sects it also followed that schools of religious learning became quite frequent (an concerning astrology many christians criticized it because it was in conflict with the idea of the free will). This also had its fair amount of influence on the amount of students for science and philosophy.
 
One thing is sure in my opinion; that there's no simple reason to why the history developed as it did. There was a range of different reasons for the development. It was not just because of sociological and economic changes.

Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 06-Nov-2008 at 11:21
Originally posted by Chilbudios

Pinguin, here's a reassessment of Pythagoras:
 
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n04/burn02_.html - http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n04/burn02_.html
 
Hyper-humanistic philosophy, you say? Big%20smile
 
...
 
Yes. I mean people like Plato that, although had and add that said "do not enter here who lacks knowledge on math" he himself was pretty ignorant on the topic, and preffered to describe the Atlantis and a world of dreams, instead of make hard calculations with geometry.... Not a phylosopher of my taste, anyways LOL. I preffer Archimedes to him Wink


-------------

Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 06-Nov-2008 at 11:24
Originally posted by Soren Svendsen

..No of course it was not. The mystics have had their fair share in every period. And Pythagoras was indeed a mystic (or at least his followers ascribing treatise in his name to give it a dogmatic fealing :) ). But is it anti-religious to consider that the period from the 5 century BCE to the to app. 2 century CE was somehow more productive? And that spirituality did it's fair share to hault the progress. As mentioned above we have the hermetics, (neo-)pythagoreans, followers of Arististotle and (neo-)platonist, jews and christians who alle start to give the different treatise a more dogmatic fealing. The Jews and Christians ascribing parts of the philosophers to be something derived from the holy books, and therefore (dogmatic) correct; the hermetics ascribing treatise to the gods, pythagoreans making Pythagoras as a prophet and hence making his work dogmatic, and almost likewise for the (neo-)platonists and the followers of Aristotle. And furthermore with the rise of the different powerdriven sects of the first centuries of the Common Era we have more and more young people being driven/lured into theology instead of philosophy and science.
 
Is it anti-religious (-spiritual), no it's historical.
 
Of course Pythagoras was a mystic and his ideas are related today's Christianity and Masonry (consider the pentagram), but he was mainly a Mathematician. Perhaps one of the brightest minds of all time.
Yes, he believed peas were animals but who cares? Everyone has the right to commit some mistakes LOLLOL
 


-------------

Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 06-Nov-2008 at 11:52
Originally posted by Soren Svendsen

It's not necissarely a consideration of what our 21th century minds find valuable. It's within the discourse of history of science. Of course one could start an argument about what exactly science is.
This is my point - a consideration within some discourses of our 21th century (to address the latest "achievements", similar positions have been expressed since Renaissance). Not every discourse of the history of science holds such claims. There are plenty of historians rejecting concepts like Dark Age/ For instance, the Annales School, through its longue durée paradigm suggests a long Late Antiquity; historians like Jacques Le Goff even suggest the modern age started earlier questioning the concept of Middle Ages itself! And this is not only a question of chronology, but also is the reinterpretation of events, in different structures, in different flows.
 
The last part has to be speculative.
If you refer to the "a large part of it didn't" part, yes, it is speculative considering I haven't read all the ancient authors but only some and I'm generalizing from a limited knowledge. However, I'd find weird and improbable that all the texts I haven't read to contain only "hard science". I'd find it equally weird and improbable for the texts which weren't preserved.
 
And it is possible that some later writers contributed to construct an image of a 'free' science.
Can you detail on that? I'm not sure I get your point here.
 
The question of interest is an important element. Some of the greek and roman philosophers, physicians did argue that people should uphold their profession for the interest. Of course the case that much of the natural philosophy, physics etc. did not have much practical outcome, made it the harder for people to keep interested. Astrology, astronomy, mathematics, and medicine however seemed still to persuade a fair amount of student because it had some practical value. But on the other side it should also be said that with the rise of the different sects it also followed that schools of religious learning became quite frequent (an concerning astrology many christians criticized it because it was in conflict with the idea of the free will). This also had its fair amount of influence on the amount of students for science and philosophy.
I think we're in agreement here. That's why I find dubious to blame superstition alone (or other scapegoats) when in all probability it was a much more complex process. And the other evidence is that once Europe progressed in many other fields (socially, economically, etc.), the intellectual life resumed (and I mean here the Middle Ages "revolutions" from 11-12th centuries onward).
 
On astrology I think it should be mentioned that despite criticism was fairly popular among Christians.
 
One thing is sure in my opinion; that there's no simple reason to why the history developed as it did. There was a range of different reasons for the development. It was not just because of sociological and economic changes.
Of course, and I agree with that. But at the same time we can't understand the history of ideas if we don't consider that they were held by real people with real lives.
 

Posted By: Soren Svendsen
Date Posted: 11-Nov-2008 at 14:44
Sorry for the delay.
 
I really don't have much to add, right now.
 
Regarding the creation of the "history of science"-construct I'm refering to that the later 'scientists' was very much a part of constructing the sources we have for the early natural-philosophers, physicians etc., ie. there representation of the earlier historical individuals is predominately what we have to work with in respect of many of the relevant individuals. Are these representation correct? But that's a whole other matter.
 
That's why I find dubious to blame superstition alone (or other scapegoats) when in all probability it was a much more complex process
 
And it's quite difficult to make a coherent analysis of this. Most historians have tended to find the single events or sociological developments which made the history develop as it did. The debate about why the greeks was able to create the scientif curricullum they did is a perfect example of this. And the ones argueing for an inclusive approach considering different elements, have great difficulties of making a coherent contruction of this, because, naturally, it becomes quite complex to elaborate on.

Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 11-Nov-2008 at 15:47
Originally posted by Soren Svendsen

Regarding the creation of the "history of science"-construct I'm refering to that the later 'scientists' was very much a part of constructing the sources we have for the early natural-philosophers, physicians etc., ie. there representation of the earlier historical individuals is predominately what we have to work with in respect of many of the relevant individuals. Are these representation correct? But that's a whole other matter.
I guess many of them are not, that's why we still have debunkings, like the one I linked earlier in the thread on Pythagoras.
 
And it's quite difficult to make a coherent analysis of this. Most historians have tended to find the single events or sociological developments which made the history develop as it did. The debate about why the greeks was able to create the scientif curricullum they did is a perfect example of this. And the ones argueing for an inclusive approach considering different elements, have great difficulties of making a coherent contruction of this, because, naturally, it becomes quite complex to elaborate on.
Difficult it may be, why should it be simple? But mono-causalism is a dangerous approach. Even if sometimes one might be aware of other possible causes, discussing and analysing one cause will bring an almost inevitable bias, thus compromising the analysis. Moreover it may happen that the "cause" is actually a dead-end. For instance, discussing in terms of "science" of "supersitition" (superstition causing stagnation of scientific progress) seems misguided from several points of view. For instance many ancient beliefs are commonly labeled "scientific" or "superstitious" depending of how they fit our modern views. Democrit is often considered as a pioneer of science, though his belief in multiple worlds or his atomism had absolutely no emprical evidence at that time. 2 millenia ago the beliefs that the sky is populated by gods or by other worlds with living beings were equally irrational and superstitious.
 
 

Posted By: IamJoseph
Date Posted: 23-Nov-2008 at 01:56
Originally posted by Chilbudios

For instance, Paul painted Xenophanes ridiculing polytheism (that Ethiopian gods are black, Thracian gods have red hair, etc.) but didn't follow him where Xenophanes concluded there must be a greater god than all these "lesser gods", universal, unchaning, absolute, etc.
 
I see the primal factor here being the translation into the greek language of the Hebrew bible, called the Septuagint, in circa 300 BCE: Paul appeared some 400 years later. The Septuagint intitiated almost all turns in modern, western history and civilization, including the faculties of Monotheism, Creationism, alphabetically written books, Democrasy [not a Greek invention!] and all world accepted laws held today.
 
What happened was, after 70 CE, when Judea was seen as destroyed and never to return, the Greeks initiated Christianity, by enjoining their beliefs with the Hebrew bible; the pre-islamic arabs initiated the Quran - both fundamentally based on the Hebrew bible: none of these peoples followed these beliefs prior to 70 CE, while all were entrenched in acquiring them via numerous wars, rivalries and hatreds.


-------------
Moses - the First Zionist.

Posted By: IamJoseph
Date Posted: 23-Nov-2008 at 02:05
Originally posted by Chilbudios

Originally posted by Soren Svendsen

Regarding the creation of the "history of science"-construct I'm refering to that the later 'scientists' was very much a part of constructing the sources we have for the early natural-philosophers, physicians etc., ie. there representation of the earlier historical individuals is predominately what we have to work with in respect of many of the relevant individuals. Are these representation correct? But that's a whole other matter.
I guess many of them are not, that's why we still have debunkings, like the one I linked earlier in the thread on Pythagoras.
 
And it's quite difficult to make a coherent analysis of this. Most historians have tended to find the single events or sociological developments which made the history develop as it did. The debate about why the greeks was able to create the scientif curricullum they did is a perfect example of this. And the ones argueing for an inclusive approach considering different elements, have great difficulties of making a coherent contruction of this, because, naturally, it becomes quite complex to elaborate on.
Difficult it may be, why should it be simple? But mono-causalism is a dangerous approach. Even if sometimes one might be aware of other possible causes, discussing and analysing one cause will bring an almost inevitable bias, thus compromising the analysis. Moreover it may happen that the "cause" is actually a dead-end. For instance, discussing in terms of "science" of "supersitition" (superstition causing stagnation of scientific progress) seems misguided from several points of view. For instance many ancient beliefs are commonly labeled "scientific" or "superstitious" depending of how they fit our modern views. Democrit is often considered as a pioneer of science, though his belief in multiple worlds or his atomism had absolutely no emprical evidence at that time. 2 millenia ago the beliefs that the sky is populated by gods or by other worlds with living beings were equally irrational and superstitious.
 
 
 
 
While much of this is correct and legitimate, there is also a problem therein. Monotheism and Creationism are not unscientific: it is based on the fundamental scientific premise of 'cause and effect'.
 
The problem you have highlighted is not with Monotheism, but with alligning this with prefered dieties and messengers, then making Monotheism as exclusively reliant on those dogmas. If for example, everyone, including scientists, agreed that the buck 'MUST' stop at one, but that none can identifiy, explain or ratify that Monotheistic ONE - because the one must be, at least, transcendent of its derivitives, there would be no problem which contradicts science.
 
Monotheism has more science and mathematical agreement than its antithesis; while preferred constructs what signifies that Monotheism are seperate issues - these must be dealt with seperately.


-------------
Moses - the First Zionist.

Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 23-Nov-2008 at 02:17
Originally posted by IamJoseph

Originally posted by Chilbudios

For instance, Paul painted Xenophanes ridiculing polytheism (that Ethiopian gods are black, Thracian gods have red hair, etc.) but didn't follow him where Xenophanes concluded there must be a greater god than all these "lesser gods", universal, unchaning, absolute, etc.
 
I see the primal factor here being the translation into the greek language of the Hebrew bible, called the Septuagint, in circa 300 BCE: Paul appeared some 400 years later. The Septuagint intitiated almost all turns in modern, western history and civilization, including the faculties of Monotheism, Creationism, alphabetically written books, Democrasy [not a Greek invention!] and all world accepted laws held today.
 
What happened was, after 70 CE, when Judea was seen as destroyed and never to return, the Greeks initiated Christianity, by enjoining their beliefs with the Hebrew bible; the pre-islamic arabs initiated the Quran - both fundamentally based on the Hebrew bible: none of these peoples followed these beliefs prior to 70 CE, while all were entrenched in acquiring them via numerous wars, rivalries and hatreds.
 
 
JOE!!!!  Stop with the religion NOW.  Drop it and go back on topic.
 
 
 


-------------
"Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces".
Unknown.

Posted By: IamJoseph
Date Posted: 23-Nov-2008 at 02:19
Originally posted by red clay

 
 
JOE!!!!  Stop with the religion NOW.  Drop it and go back on topic.
 
 
 
 
I thought the Sptuagint was 100% history!


-------------
Moses - the First Zionist.

Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 23-Nov-2008 at 02:49

Originally posted by IamJoseph

I see the primal factor here being the translation into the greek language of the Hebrew bible, called the Septuagint, in circa 300 BCE: Paul appeared some 400 years later. The Septuagint intitiated almost all turns in modern, western history and civilization, including the faculties of Monotheism, Creationism, alphabetically written books, Democrasy [not a Greek invention!] and all world accepted laws held today.
 
What happened was, after 70 CE, when Judea was seen as destroyed and never to return, the Greeks initiated Christianity, by enjoining their beliefs with the Hebrew bible; the pre-islamic arabs initiated the Quran - both fundamentally based on the Hebrew bible: none of these peoples followed these beliefs prior to 70 CE, while all were entrenched in acquiring them via numerous wars, rivalries and hatreds.

I don't think it makes much sense to voice my disagreement in detail, I'll just say that Xenophanes wrote some 2 centuries before the translation known as Septuagint.

While much of this is correct and legitimate, there is also a problem therein. Monotheism and Creationism are not unscientific: it is based on the fundamental scientific premise of 'cause and effect'.
 
The problem you have highlighted is not with Monotheism, but with alligning this with prefered dieties and messengers, then making Monotheism as exclusively reliant on those dogmas. If for example, everyone, including scientists, agreed that the buck 'MUST' stop at one, but that none can identifiy, explain or ratify that Monotheistic ONE - because the one must be, at least, transcendent of its derivitives, there would be no problem which contradicts science.
 
Monotheism has more science and mathematical agreement than its antithesis; while preferred constructs what signifies that Monotheism are seperate issues - these must be dealt with seperately.
The cause and effect are a fundamental premise in knowledge but not specifically scientific. The mainstream definitions of science differ in a significant way from what you presented here.

Posted By: IamJoseph
Date Posted: 23-Nov-2008 at 03:47
Originally posted by Chilbudios


I don't think it makes much sense to voice my disagreement in detail, I'll just say that Xenophanes wrote some 2 centuries before the translation known as Septuagint.

Yes, so did the Egyptians on stone have writings. but there is no greek alphabetical books pre-Septuagint, and the 2 centuries nominated do not have the required factors of democrasy; in fact the greek version was not democrasy. In contrast, we have a correct expression of democrasy predating the entire Greek civilzation, and it is professed in alphabtical writ.
 
Here, democrasy is not will of the people - which Greece did not adhere to any way, but that one must not follow a corrupted mass which does not have free will. The latter definition comes from the Hebrew bible. If, for example, a majority is under a dictatorship, and the people are feared to nominate their free will - then this is a corruption of the term. But if the majority is not corrupted by enforcement and fear - then only does democrasy kick in.  Think about this properly, then deduce.
The cause and effect are a fundamental premise in knowledge but not specifically scientific.
 
If you make a variation of knowledge and science, without addressing if the knowledge is correct or not, it becomes a deflective and cyclical arguement. There is no science without cause and effect; science starts as a follow-up affirmation of correct knowledge. 
 
The mainstream definitions of science differ in a significant way from what you presented here.
 
There is academic deflection and omission only. Science becomes negated where the universe is not seen as finite, a premise introduced in Genesis. It becomes a problem to acknowledge science and an infinite universe together - there is no more need to explain a cause - it was always there?


-------------
Moses - the First Zionist.

Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 23-Nov-2008 at 03:55

IAmJoseph, there are plenty of threads about Hebrews or splitting the hair about what science is, I honestly do not understand how your replies address my initial points so I guess I'll just pass. I had enough of this recently, and I am not in the mood to start over.


Print Page | Close Window

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz - http://www.webwizguide.com