The Nazi argument doesn't make sense either. Because everyone knows that in war zones extremist groups tend to rise. We've seen the same thing with Islamic extremists in the ME and Communists in occupied France. It is the agressor and instigator of separatism that is to blame.

3moReplyOptions — I like sushi

Maybe Russia should start by real free elections at home to see how long the current regime would last

In the figures I've seen the Russian majority, in "Russian majority areas" does not exceed 50 or 60 % of the population in those areas. To claim these regions should be independent or annexed to Russia based on suffrage looks like a complete tranplling on human rights and republican institutions.

Not only.

Consider this, according to Advaita all is Brahman and we are Brahman, according at least to a school we are God that forgot whom he is. Where is this found in Platonism?

In the other topic someone asked you about the similarities between Greek and Chinese Philosophy, what is your explanation?

It's like The Emperor's New Clothes.

Thanks that looks like an interesting book, since you are so familiarized with the subject it seemed an easy task for you to give a comparison. The Advaita in YouTube lectures sure looks quite different from Platonism.

For someone who only knows Advaita Vedanta from youtube videos, what exactly is the similarity with Platonism, besides being paths of self knowledge?



Regarding diet, the same way athletes from each sport have the body and diet that suits them, and they don't do it to aggrandize themselves but because they want to achieve results and is the best for their practice, it's only natural that someone committed to philosophical practice follows the one that better suits it, like Apollonius did. But it's understandable if the rest of society don't.

Most famous Platonists were vegetarians even when they performed sacrifices as a necessary evil. There were alternatives, like cakes baked with the shape of animals. Not all Christian views and doctrines have a counter part in Greek philosophy, some have actually opposite views.

On one side Christians end up being the ones putting end to animal sacrifices (even though they still occur rarely in Christian populations as surviving pagan customs), but utterly rejected the idea of compassion towards animals that had been building among Greek philosophers.

As an example, from the Neopythagorean Apollonius, being familiar with the Bible you may see the differences:

[1.8] Now Euxenus realized that he was attached to a lofty ideal, and asked him at what point he would begin it. Apollonius answered: "At the point at which physicians begin, for they, by purging the bowels of their patients prevent some from being ill at all, and heal others."

And having said this he declined to live upon a flesh diet, on the ground that it was unclean, and also that it made the mind gross; so he partook only of dried fruits and vegetables, for he said that all the fruits of the earth are clean. And of wine he said that it was a clean drink because it is yielded to men by so well-domesticated a plant as the vine; but he declared that it endangered the mental balance and system and darkened, as with mud, the ether which is in the soul.

After then having thus purged his interior, he took to walking without shoes by way of adornment and clad himself in linen raiment, declining to wear any animal product; and he let his hair grow long and lived in the Temple. And the people round about the Temple were struck with admiration for him, and the god Asclepius one day said to the priest that he was delighted to have Apollonius as witness of his cures of the sick; and such was his reputation that the Cilicians themselves and the people all around flocked to Aegae to visit him. Hence the Cilician proverb: "Whither runnest thou? Is it to see the stripling?"

He also justifies his prescience regarding the plague with his diet:

[8.5].... The third question related to the plague in Ephesus: "What motived," he said, "or suggested your prediction to the Ephesians that they would suffer from a plague?"

"I used," he said, "O my sovereign, a lighter diet than others, and so I was the first to be sensible of the danger; and if you like, I will enumerate the causes of pestilences."

But the Emperor, fearful, I imagine, lest Apollonius should reckon among the causes of such epidemics his own wrong-doing, and his incestuous marriage, and his other misdemeanors, replied: "Oh, I do not want any such answers as that."

Philostratus, Life of Apollonius

BTW regarding Theurgy just read on Wikipedia that Iamblichus emphasized sacrifices. If this is true and these were real animal sacrifices then it stands in contradiction with Pythagoreanism and in particular Neopythagoreans who were in clear opposition to the practice which they considered inhumane to animals and not fit for gods.This considering Platonists saw themselves as inheritors of pythagorianism.

No, to be honest I was talking about any kind of magic, it's just that Theurgy is too close to a religious practice and is difficult to draw a line. Also I'm not very familiar with what exactly they were doing. It was quite popular among neoplatonists from Iamblichus on, however never read about anyone being charged as a magician for those practices. Apollonius for instance was for predicting a plague. However his trial was rigged, he faced false accusations and his actions were deliberately misinterpreted.
As important as it may have been in their philosophical practice it's easy to forget about it at least reading Proclus whom despite of being an intense practinioner of it haven't found yet any relevant mention to it in the works read so far.

As far as I know Plotinus did not endorse Theurgy.

Regarding magic, it is important to notice it was considered a low and punishable practice by pagans. You can get a sense of this in Apuleius The Golden Ass. Apollonius of Taiana was himself accused of such practice and barred at least two times by pagan priests on the grounds of being a magician, the last at the oracle of Trophonius. Accusations, I believe, founded in his display of supernatural powers and his involvement with the Persian Magi. It is possible some people, including philosophers, were genuinely involved in such practices, in other cases it might have been mostly the result of calumnies by sycophants.

It's true these practices have often infiltrated religions and philosophies despite of condemnation by the same.

Alexandra David-Neel in her preface Mystics and Magicians from Tibet mentions the process of fusion of a true philosophy with such practices concluding that the name Lamaism is more suited to Tibetan religion than Buddhism.

What about memory beyond the sensible world? Assuming the soul has an existence prior to incarnating or in between incarnations.

They are both paths of self knowledge, there are also significant differences in their doctrines, at least as far as my current understanding of both allows me to see.

Did anyone say it is unsettling?

To some extent it might be counter intuitive. During the Principate period things were seen the other way around. You can find it in Plotinus desire to visit India and a modern theory that his teacher Sakkas came from those parts, in Apollonius of Tyana actually doing it, and if I'm not mistaken Pythagoras was also believed at that point to have learned from the Brahmins. Then you have the modern claim Jesus visited India.

However in the end of the day it is irrelevant. Did A influence B directly or through an intermediary, or vice versa, were both influenced by a contemporary C or a common ancestor, or did they arrive at similar conclusions in some things?At some point one realizes the important thing is the teachings, if they are useful or not, accurate or not.

If you don't mind, I needed confirmation. When you hear "cry wolf" for too long you may not believe when the wolf finaly arrives ;)

Curious enough, even though you see Greece influencing India, the beliefs you expressed earlier seem close to Advaita Vedânta than Platonism.

It seems you created a topic for these words elsewhere and someone confirmed sunaphā as a loanword from Greek. If you have evidence hora has the same origin then no point in discussing it.

Last time I checked we were discussing the alleged "Greek origin" of the Sanskrit word hora mentioned at the start, not Greek influence on Indian astrology.
If there's no problem of being cognates and no evidence of the contrary, then "case closed" :)

Have it as you like.

Regarding the origin of the word hora can't find any reference to what you and your illustrated sources are saying only that the origin of the word can be traced to proto indoeuropean.

To be honest remember once someone claiming that the Greek γνω- came from the the sanskrit jna- as in Jnana Yoga (yes these claims can work both ways), however according to the info available they are cognates.

Hi first of all congratulations for such an interesting thread and information shared. Without having read everything in detail just two points:

1- Did you consider that both are indoeuropean languages and these might be cognates? Often some scholars with nationalistic views use these words to claim one language influenced the other. Maybe the same IE origin logic could be applied to the common teachings.

2- Are νους and upper soul ψυχή the same in the platonic context? I don't believe they are, soul and νους are distinct enteties with different attributes.

If the Freemasonry existed in Roman times and had the same scope as today one would assume that it would be involved for instance in restoring the Roman republic, one would also assume that with a network of informers and people in charge of knowing what was going on Roman emperors would learn about its existence.

There is no doubt that many well positioned people in many countries, in particular in politics, are known Freemasons. But regarding masonry always existing where is the evidence it predates the 16th Century? Having likely developed from a medieval guild doesn't mean it is the same thing as the original guild itself whether in scope, doctrin or modus operandi. One thing is to keep some rituals and teachings secret the other is to keep the existence of an institution a secret. Ancient cults were pretty good with the first but as for the second people need to gather somewhere, sooner or latter someone will notice and mention or some disfranchised member will publicly criticize it.

Organizations that kept secret their rituals and teachings may appear strange today under the influence of the bias created by Christianity but they were common in antiquity and doesn't seem to be any evidence they had any particular negative influence on society, by the contrary.

Depends, we know the medieval society was an aristocratic one and the guilds were made of professional classes in which the nobility would not be involved. As well paid as masons may have been it is difficult to understand how could they have the power and influence Freemasonry latter aquired.

Thank you. I was aware that Freemasonry evolved from the medieval masons guilds but tend to look at them as different things. The oldest lodge known according to Wikipedia dates from the 16th Century. Don't know about Spain but at least in Portugal since the foundation of the kingdom until the expelling the Jews dominated and even had the monopoly of most skilled works and crafts including being the tax collectors and managing the royal treasury and, although being fairly ignorant on this issue, remember reading there was some grudge from the Christian side at the end of the MA. However even if craft guilds were involved in the actions against the Jews it is not clear this can be attributed to the Freemasonry as it is known today.

Although Masons claim Freemasonry exists since ancient Egypt is there any record or mention to them in antiquity or the Middle Ages?

Seneca was only briefly a vegetarian before becoming a Stoic, it seems he didn't want to be confused with some groups.
Didn't know Musonius was vegetarian, only that he advocated eating like slaves did which I imagine meant little or no meat. It is possible that some stoics and cynics were vegetarian as a matter of frugality or even for other reasons.
Zeno in his polemic Republic seems to have advocated even cannibalism, probably in justifiable situations.

Hope there is no problem in arriving late at the debate but the two philosophies are considerably different and seem to agree only that virtue is the way to happiness. One possesses dualism between matter and spirit, as far as I know it was not dogmatic, it is strongly based on logic and has math as necessary in its curriculum, its members were practicing vegetarians and animal rights activists. The other is a non dualist and dogmatic, mainly ethical, philosophy with little logical requirements and advocating flesh eating.
Why did one not seem to produce important politicians and the other did? I honestly don't know if it did or not but except for some branches of Stoicism there doesn't seem to be a bias about a philosopher engaging in such an activity while you can see that it was not the ideal occupation in Platonism.