Philosphy, free will, and the absence of Religious authority

Guille said:
Stop right there, you did no such thing.

Son, for the next few weeks the JV field might be better for you.

Spend some time talking to Domer, he's JV quality.
Click to expand...

lol

Sad little turdlicker. Feeling a little embarrassed when I point out your massive bullshittery?
 
Into the Night said:
Indeed. It is a model that had never been tried before. It is what makes the United States so unique.
Click to expand...

The quoted "sentence" is not actually a sentence. It is an incomprehensible fragment...an unnecessary injury to the English language apparently inflicted for no other reason than to massage your considerable ego.
 
gfm7175 said:
Apparently dictionaries are... Apparently they define words somehow.
Click to expand...

On the basis of how people (rather than God) use them over a particular period, depending upon their selection of evidence. Languages change all the time, and definitions are always provisional.
 
iolo said:
On the basis of how people (rather than God) use them over a particular period, depending upon their selection of evidence. Languages change all the time, and definitions are always provisional.
Click to expand...

Backtracking to the philosophical framework of this thread, the Socratic method for establishing definitions does not depend on what the word “democracy” means, but on what the nature of democracy is in the ontological sense; aka, its ethical qualities, its essence. That is the Socratic definition.

There is virtually unanimous and universal acceptance that a Democracy is in its essence a system of government in which power is vested in the people, either directly or indirectly through a system of representation.

The opinion, assumptions, and feelings of obscure rightwing message boarders are simply irrelevant on this topic.

Examples of modern democracies are the United States, Great Britain, France, Canada, Australia, Sweden, et al. Period, end of story.
 
Cypress said:
Backtracking to the philosophical framework of this thread, the Socratic method for establishing definitions does not depend on what the word “democracy” means, but on what the nature of democracy is in the ontological sense; aka, its ethical qualities, its essence. That is the Socratic definition.

There is virtually unanimous and universal acceptance that a Democracy is in its essence a system of government in which power is vested in the people, either directly or indirectly through a system of representation.

The opinion, assumptions, and feelings of obscure rightwing message boarders are simply irrelevant on this topic.

Examples of modern democracies are the United States, Great Britain, France, Canada, Australia, Sweden, et al. Period, end of story.
Click to expand...

More than just a THANKS due this one, Cypress.

Beautifully put!

And right on the mark.
 
Cypress said:
Backtracking to the philosophical framework of this thread, the Socratic method for establishing definitions does not depend on what the word “democracy” means, but on what the nature of democracy is in the ontological sense; aka, its ethical qualities, its essence. That is the Socratic definition.

There is virtually unanimous and universal acceptance that a Democracy is in its essence a system of government in which power is vested in the people, either directly or indirectly through a system of representation.

The opinion, assumptions, and feelings of obscure rightwing message boarders are simply irrelevant on this topic.

Examples of modern democracies are the United States, Great Britain, France, Canada, Australia, Sweden, et al. Period, end of story.
Click to expand...

The highlighted portion is doublespeak I think. Socrates would have talked about the Democracy he knew, no doublespeak there, just what he knew which was direct Democracy. Our versions today have nothing to do with Socrates.

Since you want to get back to your original intent, fine, you're wrong about the absence of religion in Athens in that time period. There was a religion it just didn't have anything to do with the Pantheon. The Pantheon was for entertainment and life lessons but their true religion was based upon ancestor worship...it reminds me a lot of the Norse.

You can talk about intellectualism all you want but Democratic Athens was one of the most warlike and expansionist states Ancient Greece ever had.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
The Arabs were world-class mathematicians and astronomers.... then along came Islam. Algebra was at least in part invented by Al-Khwarizmi, and Wikipedia states that

"Another Persian mathematician Omar Khayyam is credited with identifying the foundations of algebraic geometry and found the general geometric solution of the cubic equation. His book Treatise on Demonstrations of Problems of Algebra (1070), which laid down the principles of algebra, is part of the body of Persian mathematics that was eventually transmitted to Europe.[24] Yet another Persian mathematician, Sharaf al-Dīn al-Tūsī, found algebraic and numerical solutions to various cases of cubic equations.[25] He also developed the concept of a function.[26] The Indian mathematicians Mahavira and Bhaskara II, the Persian mathematician Al-Karaji,[27] and the Chinese mathematician Zhu Shijie, solved various cases of cubic, quartic, quintic and higher-order polynomial equations using numerical methods. In the 13th century, the solution of a cubic equation by Fibonacci is representative of the beginning of a revival in European algebra. Abū al-Ḥasan ibn ʿAlī al-Qalaṣādī (1412–1486) took "the first steps toward the introduction of algebraic symbolism". He also computed ∑n2, ∑n3 and used the method of successive approximation to determine square roots.[28] As the Islamic world was declining, the European world was ascending. And it is here that algebra was further developed." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algebra)

Many of our star names are Arabic. Again from Wikipedia: "Very old star names originated among people who lived in the Arabian Peninsula more than a thousand years ago, before the rise of Islam. However, many Arabic language star names sprang up later in history, as translations of ancient Greek language descriptions." (bold is my emphasis)

While religion may have inspired beautiful music and architecture, it seems to be anathema to reasoning and science.
Click to expand...

That is a good point.
At face value, and not knowing the historical complexities, it does seem that as Islam became a powerful and more orthodox state religion, the philosophical inquiry and scientific accomplishments of the Arab world were stunted.

On a related tangent, I also recently learned something interesting about medical history.

In the middle ages in western Europe, prevailing Catholic doctrine treated mental illnesses such as epilepsy and dementia as spiritual corruption...the work of satan or demons, basically.

In contrast, the Eastern Orthodox Christians in eastern Europe were fully aware that there were medical and natural causes to these neurological afflications.

Why? Because eastern Christianity held onto and maintained the medical knowledge of the ancient Greek world. They were aware of the knowledge of Hippocrates, Galen, et. al.

Western Christianity in western Europe lost touch with the knowledge of the ancient Greeks, and it wasn't until the Rennassaince and afterward, that the west once again began acquiring the knowledge of classical antiquity. Surprisingly, pretty much thanks to the Arabs.
 
Cypress said:
That is a good point.
At face value, and not knowing the historical complexities, it does seem that as Islam became a powerful and more orthodox state religion, the philosophical inquiry and scientific accomplishments of the Arab world were stunted.

On a related tangent, I also recently learned something interesting about medical history.

In the middle ages in western Europe, prevailing Catholic doctrine treated mental illnesses such as epilepsy and dementia as spiritual corruption...the work of satan or demons, basically.

In contrast, the Eastern Orthodox Christians in eastern Europe were fully aware that there were medical and natural causes to these neurological afflications.

Why? Because eastern Christianity held onto and maintained the medical knowledge of the ancient Greek world. They were aware of the knowledge of Hippocrates, Galen, et. al.

Western Christianity in western Europe lost touch with the knowledge of the ancient Greeks, and it wasn't until the Rennassaince and afterward, that the west once again began acquiring the knowledge of classical antiquity. Surprisingly, pretty much thanks to the Arabs.
Click to expand...

Apropos...

...Rome was a mighty republic and empire for almost 500 years...probably more powerful in its world than America was in our world. It made great strides in art, architecture, law, philosophy. It was one of the most debauched entities ever to thrive on this planet.

Along came Christianity...and within a decade or two of becoming the state religion...the Roman Empire was no more. (The Holy Roman Empire is noted for NOT being holy; NOT being Roman; and NOT being an empire.)

With the advent of Christianity...the western world descended into a period of stagnation so severe...it still is called the Dark Ages.

Just sayin'!
 
Frank Apisa said:
Apropos...

...Rome was a mighty republic and empire for almost 500 years...probably more powerful in its world than America was in our world. It made great strides in art, architecture, law, philosophy. It was one of the most debauched entities ever to thrive on this planet.

Along came Christianity...and within a decade or two of becoming the state religion...the Roman Empire was no more. (The Holy Roman Empire is noted for NOT being holy; NOT being Roman; and NOT being an empire.)

With the advent of Christianity...the western world descended into a period of stagnation so severe...it still is called the Dark Ages.

Just sayin'!
Click to expand...

A good insight.

I agree with much about the premise of your post.

But, I would add that even within Christianity there were pillars of enlightenment and dedication to scholarly knowledge. The great Christian philosopher Thomas Aquinas is responsible for a lasting legacy to western intellectual thought. And certainly although the Carolingian empire and Charlemagne were devoutly Christian, the western liberal tradition owes them a debt for advancing the cause of universal education, the establishment of universities, and a dedication to scholarly inquiry. Especially, when they stand in stark contrast to book-burning, anti-intellectuals like Luther.

I think the problem starts to become when orthodoxy and dogma control the reigns of power in the institutions of governance.
 
Cypress said:
Backtracking to the philosophical framework of this thread, the Socratic method for establishing definitions does not depend on what the word “democracy” means, but on what the nature of democracy is in the ontological sense; aka, its ethical qualities, its essence. That is the Socratic definition.

There is virtually unanimous and universal acceptance that a Democracy is in its essence a system of government in which power is vested in the people, either directly or indirectly through a system of representation.

The opinion, assumptions, and feelings of obscure rightwing message boarders are simply irrelevant on this topic.

Examples of modern democracies are the United States, Great Britain, France, Canada, Australia, Sweden, et al. Period, end of story.
Click to expand...

None of these are democracies. Power is not invested in the people (either directly or indirectly), but in a constitution. The United States, France,Australia, and Sweden are republics. They have a constitution. Great Britain and Canada are oligarchies, they are neither a democracy nor a republic. They have no constitution.
 
iolo said:
On the basis of how people (rather than God) use them over a particular period, depending upon their selection of evidence. Languages change all the time, and definitions are always provisional.
Click to expand...

Which means that dictionaries are not authoritative on the definitions of any word.
 
Guille said:
The highlighted portion is doublespeak I think. Socrates would have talked about the Democracy he knew, no doublespeak there, just what he knew which was direct Democracy. Our versions today have nothing to do with Socrates.

Since you want to get back to your original intent, fine, you're wrong about the absence of religion in Athens in that time period. There was a religion it just didn't have anything to do with the Pantheon. The Pantheon was for entertainment and life lessons but their true religion was based upon ancestor worship...it reminds me a lot of the Norse.

You can talk about intellectualism all you want but Democratic Athens was one of the most warlike and expansionist states Ancient Greece ever had.
Click to expand...

There are no surviving democracies today.
 
Frank Apisa said:
Apropos...

...Rome was a mighty republic and empire for almost 500 years...probably more powerful in its world than America was in our world. It made great strides in art, architecture, law, philosophy. It was one of the most debauched entities ever to thrive on this planet.

Along came Christianity...and within a decade or two of becoming the state religion...the Roman Empire was no more. (The Holy Roman Empire is noted for NOT being holy; NOT being Roman; and NOT being an empire.)

With the advent of Christianity...the western world descended into a period of stagnation so severe...it still is called the Dark Ages.

Just sayin'!
Click to expand...

It wasn't the church that destroyed Rome. It was the dictators.It was they that weakened Rome to the point that the barbarians could just walk all over it. Rome crumbled from within.

The church actually had messengers that would keep the various isolated communities somewhat in contact because they were willing to travel the old roads out among the barbarians and weren't too worried about their own worthless lives (sound familiar?).
 
Cypress said:
Western Christianity in western Europe lost touch with the knowledge of the ancient Greeks, and it wasn't until the Rennassaince and afterward, that the west once again began acquiring the knowledge of classical antiquity. Surprisingly, pretty much thanks to the Arabs.
Click to expand...

They also stomped out ancient medicinal knowledge of the conquered ppl where they encroached. Women who used herbs to heal became known as witches by the Church, and such practice was seen as witchcraft rather than natural medicine. The same is true of indigenous American ppl's vast knowledge of medicinal plants and treatments.
 
Into the Night said:
It wasn't the church that destroyed Rome. It was the dictators.It was they that weakened Rome to the point that the barbarians could just walk all over it. Rome crumbled from within.

The church actually had messengers that would keep the various isolated communities somewhat in contact because they were willing to travel the old roads out among the barbarians and weren't too worried about their own worthless lives (sound familiar?).
Click to expand...

Rome was at its greatest when it was at its most debauched and pagan.

Rome fell from power almost immediately upon Christianity's ascendance.

Those are the facts.

If you want to pretend you know that is coincidence...go for it.

I don't mind someone furnishing a good laugh.
 
Oh...and when Christianity ascended in Europe...

...Europe descended into a period of retrogression referred to as The Dark Ages.

700 years of science, law, and philosophy being flushed down the toilet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top