That's not true. The Franks, Lombards and co dominated the existing population but did not exterminate it. — Olivier5

I am not talking about widespread extermination of the Roman population. What I say is that with the Roman population growth decreasing since the 2th century, and with the growth of the Germanic population, and soon after, with the barbarian invasions of the Roman Empire, the culture, values, morals, traditions, taboos, etc. of the Romans died and were supplanted by medieval Germanic European culture - Charlemagne lived in a period that even the ashes of the ancient flame of Rome had already been forgotten; the Byzantine Empire was already seen as a "Greek Empire" and not important at all for the events in Western Europe -. Independent Roman culture died at the end of the 4th century with its Empire.

Why do you think Charlemagne was recognized as "Pater Europae" and "Augustus Romanum gubernans Imperium" - "Father of Europe" and "August Emperor, governing the Roman Empire" respectively - Because he rekindle that lost memory that the whole land where they lived - the Germanic barbarians - had once been something incredibly glorious and splendor, something that had been completely forgotten by the masses of the barbarian population.

The simple fact is that Charlemagne is simply so unknown and hence politically correct that the EU can name a prize after him. They wouldn't do that with a Napoleon prize and especially not with a Hitler prize. — ssu

Agreed completely.

I recommend it highly. He seems to have done a great deal of research, and wrote well. Of course, it's also a fascinating subject. — Ciceronianus the White

I'm going to take a look soon. :smile:

I live in the U.S., and am largely ignorant of religion in other countries. I see no diversification here for the most part; mostly dull forms of Protestantism (when not fundamentalist, in which case it's incredible and somewhat disturbing) and an uninspired form of Catholicism. — Ciceronianus the White

Yeah, here in Brazil is the other way around...

Yaaa... it’s hard to draw a line, in a death through thousand wounds. And thanks for reminding us the general outline. — Olivier5

You're welcome :smile:

My point is the empire could ill-afford to piss off all pagans within itself, often men of power, knowledge, prestige and leadership skills. Constantine knew it. He didn’t rock the boat, just helped the Church. He still would sacrifice to the gods when politically necessary. And it worked. For a while. — Olivier5

Emperor Constantine had been a natural example of how to be a populist ruler. He supported the religious movement that would bring him power, and he was pragmatic with everything else when needed - as you said, doing pagan religious events every now and then - and even worshiping "Sol Invictus" on his coins the year before he died. I can't decide whether to judge him as sly or intelligent, maybe a little bit of both.

Then some fanatic Nicean tries to force their Holy Trinity onto the whole empire... even on to the Arian Christians, for Jesus’ sake... The destruction (or lack of onward copying) of thousands of books from the ancients ensued. That’s the original sin of the Church herself, when she became powerful and thus corrupt, almost mechanically. The rich, the ambitious, the profiteers started to have ‘faith’ and some of them became bishop in no time, just with some seed money... — Olivier5

I compare all this widespread Christian hysteria with - perhaps - a future time when Communists, Socialists and Islamists will do the same.

Insuspect we’re right there in 421, just a few months before the sack of Washington by hordes of MAGA hats. — Olivier5

I still think that all this current nihilism occurring in the USA is a noisy minority. Times are going to get a lot worse - that's why we have about 100 to 200 more years -. Eventually, the minority will become the majority, and then my friend, the new Rome - Washington - will fall.

Jersey, I have a master's in philosophy. You have no idea what you're talking about. Feel free to show other wise. What are your credentials? Do you have a source that backs your claim?
See my reply to Judaka to understand why defining terms in discussion is a fundamental of logical discourse. — Philosophim

It is good to see more and more people turning against this type of pseudophilosophy. Well said @Philosophim!

Charlemagne remains there in the cultural background. — Olivier5

In a way, the only legacy that Charlemagne left was the freshest memory of the ancient light of Rome - something that his people - the Franks - helped to extinguish -.

Obviously, the people who made up the European population at the time when Charlemagne lived - 8th and 9th centuries - were already completely germanic and had no real connection with the ancient Roman population, and for that reason they would call him "Pater Europae" because, for them, he had built civilization - keeping in mind that the population of the time was 85% ignorant of history and even the most basic knowledges -.

The One is perhaps more appropriately described with a single word. — Hippyhead

The One.

Plotinus:

"Once you have uttered "The One", add no further thought."

At this point there is no longer any need of discussion (a deficiency). — Nils Loc

Agreed completely.

The European Union can be understood as a reconstruction of the Charlemagne empire, which itself was a sort of revival of the Roman empire. — Olivier5

In no way can they be compared. The Carolingian Empire had been forged from iron and blood, and from the ambition of a people - the Franks - led by a man of culture - Charlemage -. The European Union was forged by cowards concerned only with their economic power.

Religious division and internecine hatreds between pagans and christians is what brought them down. — Olivier5

This was only one of the causes of the fall of Rome. Other causes would be:

The Crisis of the Third Century- 234–284 -, a period of political instability.

The reign of Emperor Diocletian - 284–305 -, who attempted substantial political and economic reforms, many of which would remain in force in the following centuries, and practically established the kind of rule that was to become the norm during the Middle Ages - Despotic Autrocracy -.

The reign of Constantine I - 306–337 -, who built the new eastern capital of Constantinople and converted to Christianity, legalizing and even favoring to some extent this religion. All Roman emperors after Constantine, except for Julian, would be Christians even if for the most part of the fall of the Empire, more than 50% of the population would still be pagan.

The first war with the Visigoths - 376–382 -, culminating in the Battle of Adrianople - August 9, 378 -, in which a large Roman army was defeated by the Visigoths, and Emperor Valens was killed. The Visigoths, fleeing a migration of the Huns, had been allowed to settle within the borders of the Empire by Valens, but were mistreated by the local Roman administrators, and rebelled.

The reign of Theodosius I - 379–395 -, last emperor to reunite under his authority the western and eastern halves of the Empire. Theodosius continued and intensified the policies against paganism of his predecessors, eventually outlawing it, and making Nicaean Christianity the state religion.

The Crossing of the Rhine: on December 31, 406 - or 405, according to some historians -, a mixed band of Vandals, Suebi and Alans crossed the frozen river Rhine at Moguntiacum - modern Mainz -, and began to ravage Gaul. Some moved on to the regions of Hispania and Africa. The Empire would never regain control over most of these lands.

The second war with the Visigoths, led by king Alaric, in which they raided Greece, and then invaded Italy, culminating in the sack of Rome - 410 -. The Visigoths eventually left Italy and founded the Visigothic Kingdom in southern Gaul and Hispania.

The rise of the Hunnic Empire under Attila and Bleda - 434–453 -, who raided the Balkans, Gaul, and Italy, threatening both Constantinople and Rome.

The second sack of Rome, this time by the Vandals - 455 -.

Failed counterstrikes against the Vandals - 461–468 -. The Western Emperor Majorian planned a naval campaign against the Vandals to reconquer northern Africa in 461, but word of the preparations got out to the Vandals, who took the Roman fleet by surprise and destroyed it. A second naval expedition against the Vandals, sent by Emperors Leo I and Anthemius, was defeated at Cape Bon in 468.

So yes, Christianity was a factor in the fall of the Empire, but you could already see the light of Rome beginning to fade out in the early 3rd century.

In comparisson to our own time. I could say that we are at the end period of the reign of Commodus - 192 AD - or at the beginning of the "Crisis of the Third Century". From my studies - if they're right - we have at least more or less a 100 to a 200 years of "Western civilization" as we know it.

Your notion of natural egoism is a description of a fact and means, all living things, humans included, are naturally egoistic. We could say that egoism is our baseline attitude or approach to reality. — TheMadFool

I explicitly focus only on humanity. I do not consider the essence of other animals or other beings in my article.

Now, I'm not denying the fact of natural egoism; I'm only asking that you consider the possibility that it may not be a virtue. — TheMadFool

My use of the word "virtue" is more in the concept of using your own well-being and self-interest as a motivating force to realize your egoism - your purpose -. The greatest virtue should be your own well-being.

Egoism is the objective and, at the same time, the power that will motivate you to fulfill it.

Is this Human essence different to animal or living essence? — MSC

My argument presented here, is a descriptive way of abstracting this human "essence" that I call "egoism", however, many other synonyms can be used - as individuality, freedom, Oneness, Purpose, etc ... -. I don't think that same essence can be applied to beings other than humans - my focus is explicitly on humanity and this "essence" that makes us be us -.

What else is essential for us besides Ego? What about it's counter tool Humility? — MSC

My theory about natural egoism is an attempt to characterize the Zero point of all human life, therefore, any adjective or characteristic attributed to a human Being, completely part of natural egoism.

I get the impression that you’re being evasive for some reason. Your prerogative of course. — praxis

And I get that this discussion isn't going anywhere.

That doesn't explain the contradiction, if you believe there is one. — praxis

I don't believe there is contradiction on the philosophy of Plotinus. You affirmed that there was.

A sun is a celestial body. — praxis

It really is impossible for you to try to understand a subject that you disagree with.

I'll quote Plotinus one more time:

"Our thought cannot grasp the One as long as any other image remains active in the soul. To this end, you must set free your soul from all outward things and turn wholly within yourself, with no more leaning to what lies outside, and lay your mind bare of ideal forms, as before of the objects of sense, and forget even yourself, and so come within sight of that One."

Emperors were Arian as well. For example Contantius, the predecessor and cousin of Julian the Apostate (those were interesting times). — Ciceronianus the White

The Emperor Valens - sucessor of Julian in the East - was an Arian too. I don't know if you agree, but for me, this period of religious diversification that was in its full swing in the 3rd century is identical to our current period.

Have you ever read Gore Vidal's Julian? One of my favorite historical novels. — Ciceronianus the White

No, but now I'm interested.

I've always thought the Arian view of Jesus is more acceptable, more reasonable (if that can be said of a religious belief), than the Nicene view, — Ciceronianus the White

The Arian interpretation is much more logical and rational to the human mind and vision. "Jesus was simply a prophet of God who was adopted by him as his son". This sounds to the least studied - Germanic barbarians, and anyone without a theological and philosophical study today - as me when I was younger - - much more attractive and personal, than a "Person" of God coming to Earth to live and die between the humans.

Yet when you raise the question of legitimacy and especially the idea of a successor state, religion and religious positions are important as the secular state is a rather new concept. — ssu

True enough.

For example my country has a state church and religion is taught in schools and even the flag has cross in it, just like the other Nordic countries. — ssu

Yeah, "Suomi", or as the whole world knows, "Finland".

Likely they will have a cordial diplomatic response to the question and will avoid being confrontational. — ssu

The point is that in the end, both will consider themselves as the rightfully representative of God on Earth - both will be the legitimate "Roman Church" -.

where all govern and are governed equally. — Pfhorrest

This is way all kinds of Anarchism will never work. There an utopian ideal, some kind of metaphysical purpose for the godless politics and philosophers of the post-modern era. If we see this as a political straight line, both Anarchism and Totalitarianism are the extremes. And we have already reached totalitarianism to see that it is evil. Anarchism is to be expected to be as bad as totalitarianism.

The presence of a state is the absence of discipline, — Pfhorrest

I mean order. State is how we project order unto the larger comunity.

But did you really want this thread to derail into one about anarchism? — Pfhorrest

Yep, discussing anarchism makes any sane mind go crazy for its meaninglessness.

No, a state is a monopoly on the use of violence. — Pfhorrest

And what brings discipline to the world when it has been totally forgotten?

The primus inter pares of the Eastern Orthodox Church and the "Western" Catholic Church are the remnants of the divided Roman Empire in our times.) — ssu

But they do not compare in any way to a concept of "State" that is the premise of the discussion - Good point nonetheless -.

But now, ask both of them who they consider the rightfully "Apostolic Roman Church" to see what happens.

Latin of course survived and was considered the language of the educated and the elite — Ciceronianus the White

Reflect on that sentence for a moment. The common language of the ancient Roman civilization, which was standard until the end of the 2nd century, was eventually to be considered the scholarly and elite language, while the masses and even the barbarian elites who settled in the ancient Roman provinces, spoke a mixture of Germanic dialect, with the "vulgare" of Latin - which would eventually change and establish the languages ​​currently known as "Romance" - Portuguese - My language here in Brazil, and in Portugal; Abraço à todos! -, Spanish, Italian, French, and Romenian - - which from the 4th century to the end of Rome, was just a pile of slangs and abbreviations of the ancient language. What level of individual and cultural degradation does a society have to be in for this to occur? And in that moment, I stop and think:

Young people in the West increasingly "cool" and diverse, speaking in slang terms and abbreviations for "practicality". How long until this contribute to the end of our civilization?

Then, from the 13th century on, they were compelled to marvel at the knowledge and wisdom of the ancients revealed to them from the "rediscovery" of Greek and Roman thinkers, thanks in no small part to the Arabs. Very galling. — Ciceronianus the White

And then Luther was a thing.

But I think we can claim to have surpassed the ancients in some ways, at least, since the development of the sciences. — Ciceronianus the White

True.

I agree there was a reconstruction if not deconstruction in several ways. I think it a great loss, myself. — Ciceronianus the White

Then we are two. Even trying to understand the symbologies that such practices and customs could have for them, we will never perceive these symbols with the same passion and mentality as them, because we - the descendants of the Christians who would dominate European civilization - were completely mentally reconstituted to see the practices classic as you put it: - As something evil, demonic, strange.

It was such a huge loss, that I doubt if ever again the individual human will have such freedom and "happiness".

You mentioned the lion headed figure found in Mithraeums. How may someone raised in a Christian society think of it as anything but demonic? How can we understand animal sacrifice, or the significance of the bull not only in the Mithras cult but the worship of the Great Mother, and earlier in the worship of Dionysus and in Minoan and Egyptian religions? The significance of sacrifice and salvation are there in Christianity as well, of course, but on its face is so different. Nonetheless, it would seem the same needs and desires are being addressed. — Ciceronianus the White

Read answer above.

Early Christianity had its own sects or heresies which would strike us now as bizarre as well. The Gnostics most especially I think. Gnosticism may have been influenced by Hermes Trismegistus and pagan cults emphasizing secret knowledge as necessary for salvation. — Ciceronianus the White

For example, for the short time in my life that I considered myself a Christian, I understood the concept of trinity in this way:

"Denial of the true divinity of Jesus Christ taking various specific forms, but all agreed that Jesus Christ was created by the Father, that he had a beginning in time, and that the title "Son of God" was a courtesy one."

Years later, studying the Christian faith, I ended up discovering that my past Christian belief was nothing more than the Arian interpretation of Arianism - a Christian heresy from the 3rd and 4th centuries, and which was widely adopted by the Germanic barbarians who invaded the Roman Empire - later, all of them would convert to Catholicism in the most diverse ways - -.

Gnosticism was - in my view - almost an identical religious cultural movement as the contemporary one - everyone has a personal god and interpretation of it, and everyone has to respect each other gods and interpretations -.

The burden of proof is on the state to prove its legitimacy, and it has not done so. — Pfhorrest

I am pretty sure that the state's legitimacy has already been proven by it through the power it commands over the population of said state. You could say that morally it was legitimized from the moment that we - humanity - subjected ourselves to its mode of governance - it was this or endless chaos -.

States should go away, somehow, eventually, because they are morally illegitimate; but philosophical anarchism has no specific commitments to when or how that should happen. Different individuals may hold different opinions about it. — Pfhorrest

In my view, the concept of "State" as understood today, is not the same as that of the medieval, nor of the ancients, nor of the prehistoric ones, therefore, could they consider our concept as a "post-state" mode of governance?

I do not believe that the root of the order that the abstraction of the State brings, will dissappear, but that it will change together with humanity; and thinking in this way, we enhance all possibilities of different governance modes. I, for example, believe that there is a way of government not yet discovered by humanity, where the individual wills of each person would be represented completely by the functions of the "State" - whatever term would be used to define this type of order - in an atomized structure and which would become the political community established without needing a means of force.

Can my concept of governance be considered "post-state" to? Anarchism is just a difference type of governance.

State means order;
Government means how will you establish this order.

not what to do in practice about people doing morally illegitimate things. — Pfhorrest

Why then, in your view, the State is illegitimate? And why would you not support its overthrow?

It seems as a contradiction to me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_anarchism — Pfhorrest

Quote from the page:

"Philosophical anarchism is an anarchist school of thought, which holds that the state lacks moral legitimacy whilst not supporting violence to eliminate it."

"philosophical anarchists do not believe thatthey have an obligation or duty to obey the state, or conversely that the state has a right to command"

What will you do when te state uses his force against you - let's suppose this happen -? Will you stop him to say that it doesn't have the right? Then what? Do you expect it to simply respect your individual property?

Philosophical anarchism is as useless as political anarchism.

"Soaking in the sweetest summer rain
Denial, you win again
And I'll happily lose to you"

If you’re suggesting a contradiction then what is it? — praxis

Are you reading the discussion? I doubt so.

Plotinus compared the One to "light", the Divine Intellect to the "Sun", and lastly the Soul to the "Moon" whose light is merely a "derivative conglomeration of light from the 'Sun'". The first light could exist without any celestial body.

Quoting Plotinus:

"Once you have uttered "The One", add no further thought: by any addition, and in proportion to that addition, you introduce a deficiency."

You could say the One, but not "The One is the One" because with that phrase, you introduce deficiency to it.

I doubt we of the West will ever get over the Roman Empire. We've always looked back to it, and I think we always will. Perhaps if Alexander had lived longer, or his successors weren't so intent on fighting each other, that potential fusion of disparate nations, peoples, cultures and beliefs would have dominated West and East. As it is, Hellenistic culture was influential throughout the Mediterranean Sea and beyond.

Rome succeeded where Alexander and his successors failed. It conquered the lands assumed by his generals and more (to the West), but more importantly it lasted, for centuries in the West and more centuries in the East. The Eastern Empire was Greek in language and culture, but Roman in law, administration and militarily (the language of law remained Latin). It called itself Roman long after what is traditionally considered the fall of the Western Empire. So, for that matter, did the barbarian nations which took its place in the West, through Charlemagne to the rather absurdly named Holy Roman Empire. It survives still, in a sense, as a kind of ghost in the form of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Later empires, Spanish, French and British, imitated it; the British who ran their empire were raised on it. Even the short-lived empire of Napoleon, and Napoleon III, was influenced by it. Napoleon deserved the to be called "Emperor" (a military title, after all) more than most emperors of Rome.

Its success and lasting influence can be attributed to several things. Roads, an unmatched military for many years, tolerance for most beliefs, religions and cultures provided its imperium was acknowledged and respected and taxes paid, its law and administration, the prosperity which accompanied the Pax Romana, and finally, perhaps, and ultimately, its governments' association with and imposition of an exclusive, aggressive and intolerant religion and the ruthless suppression of all others.

Well, that certainly sums up the past few thousand years of the West (I joke). — Ciceronianus the White

One of the most striking features, which made Roman civilization so great and productive, was that it had emerged from a culture that had been evolving over time, without needing any cultural reference - diferent from the post-roman Europe -. One of the issues that most concerned medieval European monarchs was the concept of legitimacy. It was an unremitting struggle to decide who could really be considered the "successor" of the Roman Empire - therefore, of all the civilization they had until then inherited -, and for that very reason that European states were so unstable and techno-culturally backward - during the Early Middle Ages -. It was an eternal discussion of do-nothing-kings about who could be considered the heir to the throne of Rome, one who was already of iron and rust.

I doubt we of the West will ever get over the Roman Empire. — Ciceronianus the White

Perhaps this is the cause of the cyclical secularism and nihilism that afflicts the West from time to time? In the end, the thought that may arise in the mind is that we did not develop anything, nor did we build anything, we just destroyed a great civilization that was the world, and now we try to reconstruct it through the little pieces that remain...

No states are morally legitimate — Pfhorrest

Please, clarify your position,

I am not sure which argument is being referred to here. — Valentinus

(III.8.10) As Plotinus explains in both places and elsewhere (e.g. V.6.3), it is impossible for the One to be Being or a self-aware Creator God.

The fortunes of the empire that ruled Europe came to an end and was replaced by a succession of other systems. That the new emerging states or principalities formed in image of their ancestors is not a proof of some continuous idea but a testimony to a lack of imagination on the part of those who grew up in the absence of imperial demands. — Valentinus

I completely agree. The barbarian kingdoms established in Europe after the fall of Rome in 476 AD are an example of what mental degradation and cultural decay can do to humanity. Even the values ​​and morality so individualistic and concerned with freedom, during the Classical Age, had been totally distorted by nihilism - a perfect example of the situation I describe here, is the concept of "primus inter Pares" or "first among equals" that during the classical era was so prevalent and real in roman leaders, was also used by the Germanic barbarians during the Middle Ages - while in reality, the mass population was made up of ignorant servants, and slaves without any freedom - even though it was a contradiction clear the reality of the era -. Doublethink is real people, don't ignore this fact!

what then is left but just to ENJOY it? — Pfhorrest

Humanity was not made to "enjoy" the result of its achievements. History proves that humanity only flows and grows "during" the procees of development to a goal. When that same goal is achieved, what comes into play? Nihilism, decay, the destruction of everything that took us so long to build, and why? Because we love "purpose", the objective while its not in our hands. The appreciation of your creation is a pleasure reserved only for the divine, the transcedental.

Were the holy Roman Emperors still rulers of the Roman Empire? — unenlightened

In this regard, we would have to decide which Holy Roman Empire was really considered as a continuation of the Roman Empire - from the Western part -:

The Holy Roman Empire declared with the coronation of Charlemagne in 800 AD -;

The Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation - Heiliges Römisches Reich Deutscher Nation - declared with the coronation of Otto I in 962 AD.

I don't even know if I would consider them "continuations" of the Roman Empire. They are more like "zombified" versions of the old Empire.

Arguably, the Roman Catholic church is the Roman Empire modified — unenlightened

Yeah, really arguably.

In order to... what? — praxis

To actually perceive and understand it perfectly.

It’s everything — praxis

His - Plotinus's - "One" "cannot be any existing thing", nor is it merely the sum of all things, but "is prior to all existents".

Is it essential to have others (animals, things, humans) in your life to be happy? — LiveAnotherDay

Is it essential to have others (animals, things, humans) in your life to be happy? Or is it possible to be happy without them? — LiveAnotherDay

Potential objects external to the egoist have only one total certainty – that of pain. To be more direct:

If you want to be "happy" - whatever that means to you - you need nothing but yourself.
However, if you want guaranteed pain, anguish and suffering, live and enable the external factors.

Gee it's me, the evil antinatalist.. — schopenhauer1

Oh, ok.

I sense trolling — schopenhauer1

Not on my regard.

I personally see the human experience as so much more meaningful than seeking pleasure and avoiding pain. Far too binary for me and there is something to be said for the endeavour of struggling against the harsh universe for your joy. — MSC

I regard it a complete disregard for human intellectual and physical evolution. If we have something different from animals, it is the fact that we can fight our instincts at all times. However, people - for the most part - get carried away by the wave of the dionysian. Bah! If you want endless sensations, be then irrational animals and leave your vacant places as former humans to those who are really worthwhile.

It really is an easy trap. My prey has yet to take the bait though. — MSC

Hm, interesting. May I know who they prey is?

I voted yes because — praxis

would be great. — Pfhorrest

This is an easy trap for the vast majority of people — Gus Lamarch

This is an easy trap for the vast majority of people, who, in order to escape pain and anguish, drown themselves in oceans of "good" sensations, immediate, instantaneous sensations. But I do not dare to say that the strongest are immune, because it only takes a press of this button, in a completely conscious person, to remove it from its virtues and morals, making it become an empty shell. Therefore, the choice must be cut - "No" is the only answer possible -.

Experience it. — praxis

Could you really experience something absolute, or just your deficient version of it in existence?

My question is about how to abstract the One, without the deficiencies caused by our finitude. I came to the thinking that we could arrive at the conception of the One, through the division of concepts. - Ex: We would (?) describe (?) part (?) of the One by mathematics, another part by language, another by metaphysics, reason, emotion, etc ... -

High is relative to low, meaning is relative to meaningless, purpose is relative to purposelessness, — praxis

This way of thinking is in part because of our existence as Beings. My use of "higher" is further proof that we are unable to attribute characteristics and details to the One without harming its concept.

Any attempt to define the universe in terms of attributes is doomed to fail ergo, the One, the universe, is "beyond all attributes". — TheMadFool

Agreed.

The triumph of Christianity was so extensive — Ciceronianus the White

This is a subject that fascinates me too much. Christianity completely deconstructed the classic mentality of the people of the time - from ethics, values, morals, virtues, stereotypes, prejudices, taboos, fetishes, dress, language, etc ... - It was like a complete deconstruction of the structuring of the human mind of the time - of course, over the years and not in a single moment -.

Mithras, Helios and Luna are depicted in the imagery. — Ciceronianus the White

They probably venerated a holy version of a zurvanist demon:

One of the most characteristic and poorly-understood features of the Mysteries is the naked lion-headed figure often found in Mithraic temples, named by the modern scholars with descriptive terms such as leontocephaline - lion-headed -. Based on dedicatory inscriptions for altars,[f] the name of the figure is conjectured to be Arimanius, a Latinized form of the name Ahriman - a demonic figure in the Zoroastrian pantheon -.

Arimanus:

Just posting this here because if I post it on the discussion I wanted it would sound rude.