Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Pre-Socratic Philosophy
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Pre-Socratic Philosophy
    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?
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900 		  Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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
 
ubine eramus sumus
eramus or sumus? Wink
 


Edited by Chilbudios - 20-Oct-2008 at 11:52
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.


Edited by Sahrian - 21-Oct-2008 at 14:43
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900 		  Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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/ 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).


Edited by Chilbudios - 21-Oct-2008 at 15:28
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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"?



Edited by Sahrian - 21-Oct-2008 at 15:58
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900 		  Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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://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:
 
I guess so many scholars are "confused" like I am. And then I can say I'm proud to share this "flaw" with them.
 


Edited by Chilbudios - 21-Oct-2008 at 15:58
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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://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. 


Edited by Sahrian - 21-Oct-2008 at 16:31
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900 		  Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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 (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.
 
 


Edited by Chilbudios - 21-Oct-2008 at 16:50
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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 (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?


Edited by Sahrian - 21-Oct-2008 at 21:31
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900 		  Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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).
 
Back to Top
Yiannis View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2329 		  Quote Yiannis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900 		  Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.


Edited by Sahrian - 21-Oct-2008 at 21:03
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035 		  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900 		  Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
 
 


Edited by Chilbudios - 21-Oct-2008 at 18:38
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
 
 
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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



Edited by Sahrian - 21-Oct-2008 at 19:39
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900 		  Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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/ 
 
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 (on the god of Xenophanes plus the passage rendered in Greek)
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 (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)
 
and so on, consider this as a head start, you can check for yourself more books and form your own opinions.
 
 
 
 
 


Edited by Chilbudios - 21-Oct-2008 at 20:01
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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?
 


Edited by Sahrian - 21-Oct-2008 at 20:02
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1900 		  Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
 
 
 


Edited by Chilbudios - 21-Oct-2008 at 20:17
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.