The insidious nature of over-indulgence of the flesh and it's quiet, subtle as well as not so quiet and subtle controlling grip over man's destiny and most consequentially, society itself, whether it manifests as a conscious urge or theme one recognizes and responds to or has quietly become part of one's identity and character or community zeitgeist without it consciously being in people's minds as "important" or "occupying", ie. the measurable effect and influence remains pivotal whether or not it is viewed as such or even pondered at all, similar to unconscious bias. — Outlander

Well, I disagree. I don't think there's anything establishing that indulging in sexual desires dominated political, social or economic decisions in antiquity, or influenced them in any significant sense.

Ciceronianus is your source on all things Roman. — BitconnectCarlos

I enjoy irony.

Then there's the distaste for philosophers like Heidegger, who stands out for his personal life associated with Nazism. — Shawn

Distaste for Heidegger? You astound me.

He certainly was a stand out Nazi. Stood by them as well.

So like most things, it was not the thing itself, but the principle behind it, in this case the lack of one, the dangers of blind indulgence, corruption and destruction of intellectual and moral values, and the resulting tendency of these things, especially when conducted in unison, to destroy societies and as a result end entire civilizations writ-large. — Outlander

I think you give sex far too much importance, as did Paul and others did after him.

I referred to indifference to sex in the Roman and Greek (perhaps I should use "Hellenic") world compared to what came later. It may be more accurate to say that sex didn't have the significance it came to have. Sexual relationships could be significant (like convenient marriages), but not so much the sexual act. I think that, then, people weren't as disturbed by it as they are now, particularly as to sex of certain kinds, it seems.

An example, ever been to the ruins of Pompey, or seen them on video? If so, you may have noticed the appalled reaction of some visitors, or the giggling of others, at the frequent depiction of the phallus and the occasional paintings or murals involving various sexual acts. Such things weren't thought forbidden or depraved at the time; a phallus could even be considered "lucky".

We come to attribute too much significance to what we think is forbidden, especially when we believe it's forbidden by God. This strikes me as particularly the case here in our Glorious Union. So we tend to see such as Anthony Comstock, Carrie Nation, Billy Sunday (who was it seems a good baseball player) and other preachers against purported vices of all kinds). We also see others who like to appear to glory in those vices thinking it makes them remarkable in some sense.

I usually delight in quibbling, but don't feel you must peruse your cache of quotes regarding the naughtiness of sodomy on my account. I don't doubt there were those who disapproved of it and pederasty in particular, but I think most were indifferent to it compared to the angry fascination with it we see later.

As to Caesar, as I noted, the Romans thought a man taking the passive role in gay sex was ridiculous. So, Caesar was mocked for taking the passive role, in other words becoming another man's woman.

understand notions of purity existed in Roman culture but they seemed to be very selective and not at all universal & dependent on social class. — BitconnectCarlos

I don't think the ancients were as consumed by the thought of sexual deviancy as we are, or have been, since the remarkable, sex-hating, Paul of Tarsus began to contribute to what Christianity became.

For example, both ancient Greece and ancient Rome were largely indifferent to same sex relations at least where men were concerned, though the Romans considered it unmanly and rather ridiculous for a man to assume the "passive" role in those relationships. Julius Caesar was mocked by his detractors for being "Every woman's man and every man's woman." The regard the Romans had for the family under the stern supervision of the pater familias made it difficult and dangerous for a woman to be sexually active with more than one partner at a time, but I think the men were mostly free to do what they liked.

The Sacred Band of Thebes, a select group of warriors, was made up of male couples in a same sex relationship, one older and one younger. Alcibiades supposedly was in love with Socrates, according to Plato. Hadrian had his Antinous. Same sex relations and bisexuality were rather common, it seems, and depicted in such works as Petronius' Satyricon.

Paris is a dump, London is beyond gone, Lisbon and Brussels are approaching a point of no return. Europe is busted. The belief that it is fine doesn't stand a one-week trip to De Hague. — Lionino

All those Mongolian tourists. I understand.

That's something that someone who has never been to Europe would say. Of it, Rome and Greece are places that exist outside of history books, they can be seen physically today, the glory is still there — someone who ignores it today would ignore it back then too. — Lionino

I've been there five times, and hope to return. Only once to Rome and once to Greece--Athens and the day trip to Delphi, and Santorini. I had hoped to get to Eleusis to see the remains of the Telesterion and other sites related to the Mysteries, but couldn't.

They're wonderful, of course, but in many ways we can only make educated guesses regarding what they were, and I think it's what they were that laid the foundation for Western civilization. We should be thankful that so much survived the ravages of Christianity.

This thread really serves to spotlight your pedantry, I must say. Sorry, I will say. No, I have said.

Oh, Europe's just fine. You needn't worry about it. We continue to look back on the glory that was Greece and the grandeur that was Rome as Poe would say.

Not much, I think.

I am hoping we might discuss what Scholasticism had to do with the change. — Athena

It isn't clear to me it had anything to do with it, if I understand your question correctly. Are you asking whether the rediscovery of the works of Aristotle and other ancient thinkers by monks influenced the change?

the mad god Dionysus
— Ciceronianus
i.e. life-affirming ("ja-sagen") — 180 Proof

Not id est, I think, but quite literally mad because Hera made him such when she finally located him. But his worship was also associated with wine, revelry, fertility and festivity as well. I'm sure N knew this all very well.

There is an abundance of such testimonies in interview form, from people alive today who have prayed and had such visions — Hallucinogen

So "visions" are observations of reality, it seems.

Perhaps it seems that way because N's assessment was Dionysian and not as Apollionian as S's assessment.
6 hours ago — 180 Proof

There's very little of the mad god Dionysus in Stoicism, it's true.

Schopenhauer's assessment of Stoicism was more profound than that of Nietzsche.

Does life have any potential to be anything beyond suffering, — Arnie

Nope. It's suffering, alright. All of it. Every last bit. Suffer, suffer suffer. Sufferin' succotash, as Sylvester the cat would say. In saecula saeculorum..

Or you might agree with Epictetus and conclude that we're not disturbed by things, but by the view we take of them, and act accordingly.

The dreams coming true happens only in the movies and fictions. Waking up from the dreams into the cold reality is what happens in real world. — Corvus

If you'd like to see a movie which might wake you up from the American Dream, I think There Will Be Blood should do the trick.

Well, I like to take advantage of any excuse to quote Warren Zevon:

"You can dream the American Dream,
But you sleep with the lights on
And wake up with a scream,
You can hope against hope
That nothing will change,
Grab ahold of that fistful of rain."

Well, it may sound ridiculous, but who's to say that a god wouldn't punish the theists? — Scarecow

Hardly ridiculous. You must know that gods of all sorts routinely punish those who believe in them. It's part of the job.

It strikes me that your metaphor doesn't work, perhaps because those you mention in your post don't seem to be "idols" as usually defined, except perhaps Pythagoras, who was revered by his followers in ancient times much as Epicurus was by those who followed him. But Pythagoras wasn't revered for his theorem, which is what you seem to focus on in his case.

Regardless, where idols are concerned, if they are being considered, why have them at at all?

Nonetheless, if sin is in fact some act (or thought) contrary to the will of God, then it’s impossible for me (and for most people, I’d argue) to KNOWINGLY sin. — Art48

Stop boasting. You've just committed the sin of pride, one of the seven deadly sins. Besides, you'll sin regardless of whether you do so knowingly.

You don't have to knowingly sin to be sinful. You're tainted with the proclivity to sin by virtue of being born. You're going to sin whether you know it or not; just as you'll die whether you want to or not.

What makes you think God must reveal his will to you, by the way, before you can sin? Are you Moses, to be favored with a divine revelation? Might not God's will be made manifest without the need for a visitation?

Just limit it to critical thinking. Even that will cause problems with parents in our Great Republic. As for the rest, critical thinking will serve them better than a historical survey of philosophy. They can do that kind of reading on their own, if they want.

I read it, but elaborate justifications of totalitarianism don't appeal to me.

I must admit this isn't something that I've had the opportunity to consider.

Consider the words of H.L. Mencken "The Sage of Baltimore":

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

Mencken was a great critic of American democracy, such as it was in his time, and still is. He was a prescient man, who also wrote:

As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.

Abrahamic religions are essentially exclusive and intolerant. It's not possible to reason with those who believe they already know
— Ciceronianus

I am not disagreeing. However, doesn't this apply, even if to varying degrees to: Communists, Capitalists, Racial Supremacists, Certain groups of Academics and Scholars, etc. Note also that while historically, the same might not have applied to "Hinduism," but the Hinduism of Modi? — ENOAH

It would depend, I suppose, on whether they maintain that what they believe or know was revealed to them by something equivalent by to the one, true, all-knowing God who created the universe.

Ah well. I'm just a lawyer who reads a lot, but I have a blog as well.

Ironically, this is an image of God that is often criticized by the Patristics, some of the big Medieval Latin theologians, and many contemporary Catholic philosophers. The Catholic philosophy space is quite vibrant, and so it's always surprising to me how this doesn't seem to trickle down into the lower levels of religious education. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I know little of the Patristics, though they seem interesting. Christianity, I think, has always had difficulty trying to incorporate pagan philosophy into its doctrine. The effort to do so began, I believe, when the early Christians tried to answer the criticisms of such as Porphyry and Celsus. I think a great part of the difficulty was due to the insistence that Jesus was not only divine, but "one in being with the Father." The more that one claims that God is "the god of the philosophers" the less it's possible to accept Jesus as God, and also that he is the God of the Old Testament.

I was raised Catholic. My experience of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is similar to that of 180 Proof, though my time in Catholic schools was limited to 10 years. I feel rather nostalgic about the Church of my youth. It's an aesthetic fondness related to the ritual and appearance of its ceremony and the physical churches themselves. That was before the Church became bland, at least here in the U.S.

The Church and Christianity in general was and I think still is a remarkable and fascinating hodgepodge of certain ancient pagan philosophical and religious beliefs and Judaism, but I stopped being a believer long ago. I find it hard to believe in any transcendent, creator God, and especially the personal, hectoring, demanding and strangely needy sky-gods of the kind that are worshipped in the West. I find the ancient Stoic view of God compelling--an immanent God which is immersed in Nature, and the active, creative essence of the universe.

I do think you might endear yourself to an Orthodox Jew though with your insistence that the laws are immutable and unchanged since the day Moses walked off the mountain, as historically inaccurate as that might be. I — Hanover

I wasn't aware the Ten Commandments had changed. What do they say now? Or have they added more, to make up for the five which were lost when Moses dropped the third tablet, according to Mel Brooks?

It is no coincidence that our own modern system has similarities to that. We have a document (i.e. the Constitution) that we hold out as holy, we appoint special priests to interpret it, and we alter and form its meaning around daily disputes. You don't need to change the text of the Constitution to change the meaning and religions do the same with their documents. I suppose in most secular systems you have a mechanism to change the text of the law and perhaps you have the same in certain religious systems (for example the Mormon President's ability to decree law) or you have workarounds (like Papal infallibility allowing the text to mean whatever he says by definition). — Hanover

I think we agree on many things, but I don't think this analogy works. I know next to nothing about Mormon doctrine, and know enough about Catholic doctrine to understand that papal authority to state or make infallible pronouncements is limited and has been very rarely exercised, but the Constitution itself provides it can be amended and describes how that may be done. It would be as if the Ten Commandments stated that they may be altered provided appropriate steps were followed.

It is strange to note the execution of Christians, and then claim that the Christians were executed because they were intolerant, not being willing to venerate pagan gods. "We had to kill them because they intolerantly refused to worship our god and/or emperor." This argument will always fail for a modern mind. It would be like saying, "We had to burn the heretic at the stake because they intolerantly refused to accept Christian dogma." This is backwards. — Leontiskos

.

The followers of pagan gods didn't take the position taken by Jews and Christians regarding God or religion. A pagan didn't claim that the god they were worshipping at any particular time was the only god, nor did they believe that all must worship that god and no other. That wouldn't occur to a pagan, nor was it the position of the Empire in pagan times.

Christians wouldn't tolerate any god but their own. That's the intolerance I refer to, and is what led the Christian Roman Empire to forbid all pagan worship, and led Christians to kill Hypatia and others, destroy pagan temples, etc.

Thank you. That's a significant point.

Where does your virtue of tolerance come from? The American Revolution? The French? Romanticism? The Enlightenment? The humanist revival? Christendom? The Roman Empire? Greek philosophy? The Hebrew scriptures? — Leontiskos

Specifically as to a comparison with the Abrahamic religions, I refer to the tolerance of other religious traditions in the ancient Mediterranean before and while Christians began stamping them out. Members of the Mithras cult, or that of Isis or Cybele, for example, weren't prohibited from worshipping other gods or becoming initiates of other mysteries. Rome was generally tolerant of all forms of worship provided they weren't believed to be a danger to its rule. It didn't require that all people within its empire worship Jupiter Optimus Maximus. Jews were considered peculiar, but were allowed to worship their peevish god and avoid the homage demanded by the Roman state as they wished until they revolted against Roman rule and were ruthlessly repressed or exterminated.

The so-called persecutions of Christians have been wildly exaggerated, and were in response to actions, or we might say omissions, of believers deemed to be threats and a rejection of the Roman state, e.g. the refusal of military service or refusal to make an offering generally in form of incense to the well-being of Rome or the reigning Emperor, a problem pagan believers didn't have as they weren't intolerant

Religious debate doesn't lead to absolute rules. Much is debated and remains debated. Rules are also subject to change.

But you know this, so I don't know why you say otherwise. — Hanover

What about the rule you shall have no other god before God, or, for that matter, the other rules described, significantly, as "The Ten Commandments"? Are all of those subject to change? There may be varying interpretations of some of them (that "graven images" bit may have made some uncomfortable, and be considered to apply only to certain images, for example). Some may be ignored to suit our purposes, as in the case of the ones that say we shall not kill, or commit adultery. But the rules remain, don't they? It's one of the "rules" of the Abrahamic religions, I think, that the rules they impose may merely be given lip service when they become inconvenient, but they don't change.

That is, of course most religions consider themselves correct, but so do you. — Hanover

Well, it's not quite the same thing. What religions consider correct are different from what I consider correct. Religions may maintain it's correct, e.g., that God exists, that God has certain characteristics, that God should be worshipped in a particular way, that other Gods don't exist, that God wants us to believe in him, that God wants us to behave in a particular way, that if we don't do so we sin and are subject to punishment.

What I consider correct is somewhat less imposing and absolute. And even subject to change.

The right fears godless rule while the left fears godful rule. — Hanover

Which seems to make the what right wants good and what the left wants bad doesn't it? What could be bad about godful rule, and good about godless rule?

genealogy of modern tolerance — Leontiskos

I'm uncertain what you mean by this.

This is quite the broad statement, describing the essence of all Abrahamic religions, from Shia Muslims, to Mormons, to Church of Christ, to Reconstructionist Jews and so on. — Hanover

I suppose those sects, if the recognize Abraham as a prophet and believe in the Covenant, would be Abrahamic, but don't know enough about them to say whether they are or not. I suppose it's possible that they don't teach they are "the way, the truth and the life", but understand that traditional Judaism, Christianity and Islam do.

Is there a problem with God of Abraham religions that we might resolve with reason? — Athena

I doubt it. The Abrahamic religions are essentially exclusive and intolerant. It's not possible to reason with those who believe they already know what there is to know because their God has told them so (a felicitous bit of rhyming, if I don't say so myself).

Not Brazilian, no. But all too aware of the conceit of many of my countrymen in the USA.