Well, Stoicism might help. As more probably will certain drugs. Otherwise, philosophy wouldn't be a cure, I think. It might even be conducive to suicide, if only out of frustration with the fact that we're unable to kill, or sadly even maim, most philosophers whose works we read.

Schopenhauer would say that it strives to interpret and reconcile external objects to a coherent subjective worldview. — Michael Zwingli

That's odd, if he truly thought it to be not just blind, not just unconscious, but aimless as well.

Enslaved humans are the machines a society uses, they are not part of that society. — Athena

Spoken like a true Spartan!

but it did not start taking care of everyone's needs as Sparta did. — Athena

Sparta had a subject population, the Helots, to take care of the needs of the Spartans. There were far more Helots than Spartans. Hardly socialism. But it does seem familiar, doesn't it?

The university system to me seems to be instilling a sense of class separation and control through just the same phenomena; the proposed oligarchy of the intelligentsia. As if we haven't seen that mentality utterly fail over and over again throughout history. — kudos

I think you ascribe too much significance to the university system. I think the majority of students forget, or perhaps simply ignore, their university education after graduation. They find it has little to do with their lives unless they choose to join the closed, self-involved, self-regarding community of academics. They may benefit from contacts they make, but I doubt they consider themselves an elite or superior merely by virtue of the fact that they have a college education. There is no "oligarchy of the intelligentsia" here in God's favorite country, at least.

By really learning - not just learning how to be something like a lawyer or a dentist - do we agree by contract to concede action and certainty? — kudos

If you learned how to be a lawyer, you'd know that one doesn't "agree by contract" to anything by "really learning."

So much for "really learning."

Perhaps gentiles in Israel could be confined to ghettos. There are precedents, of sorts.

The problem is silence is ambiguous - it, as you seem to be aware, sometimes means something and at other times means nothing. So, if no one is saying anything, either they're not saying anything or they are. — TheMadFool

It seems to be ascribed meaning when it is noted. In other words, when it's unexpected, as in the case where a response is either anticipated or desired.

qui tacet consentire videtur — TheMadFool

Actually a maxim of law--silence implies consent where a person in good faith would speak.

Silencium Universi (The Great Silence) — TheMadFool

A practice of certain Christian religious orders--after Compline (end of the day prayers), speech is forbidden.

What silence signifies depends on context.

Okay, what is a good way to classify our truths (a word) so we can label those truths in conversation as different kinds of truth? — Athena

"Quid est veritas?", said "jesting Pilate." Dewey thought that "truth" carried so much baggage its use should be avoided. Never a paragon of eloquence, he suggested that it be replaced by "warranted assertibility." So, we would say that one is warranted in asserting that such and such is the case if that is what the best and greatest amount of evidence indicates is the case, subject to the recognition additional evidence may require a change in the assertion.

I personally would avoid referring to "different kinds of truth." I think "truth" is a question of judgment, and judgments are made based on circumstances and based on what is the case in those circumstances. There are assertions for which evidence exists and the extent of evidence may reasonably be used to determine which is more reliable--one which is without evidence shouldn't be thought of as true; One the other hand, there are matters of taste, for which there may be no dispute, and it would be inappropriate to say a preference for a certain kind of ice cream is "true." There are matters of religious belief, unsupported by evidence, which cannot be said to be "true."

But see, Genesis 3:17, "To Adam he said, 'Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat from it,' 'Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life."

I take this to mean that Adam was punished not just for what he did but "because [he] listened to [his] wife." It's one thing I guess to defy God on your own, but to do it because your wife tells you to seems just a bit too much for even the good Lord to tolerate. — Hanover

From the use of the conjunctive "and" I would think you're right. The curse is caused because Adam did both things.

An interesting and important question, I have a very old logic book that explains we can never know enough to believe we know what we know without a doubt. I think there are some things we can be more sure of than others. I think we can agree water is wet. However, we may not agree on what is the best news program. — Athena

It's important to determine what it is we're referring to when we speak of "truth." If the question is whether water is wet, I doubt that anyone adheres to a "point of view" which would induce them to claim it is not wet, and if a person would make such a claim I think we would be justified in saying that person is wrong. If a Nazi claims that Jews sacrifice Gentile children as part of their religious rituals and drink their blood, I don't think it would be appropriate to say that claim is a "possible truth that could be valid."

Aristotle was highly impressed by the Spartan efficiency and he leads us to authoritarianism. — Athena

Based on what he writes in his Republic, Plato might be described as the totalitarian's best friend. He more than anyone I know of championed government control of every aspect of our lives (for our own good, as every totalitarian claims).

Sure he did. Genesis 2:15 to 2:17.

15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.” — Hanover

You're right. But "the man" was only warned of death, not everything else--working, sweating, experiencing pain, sickness, inclination towards evil, etc., for himself and all his descendants. So, "the man" wasn't fully informed.

That is the mindset of Nazi Germany, not the US that emulated Athens and the gods, each one of them being distinctly different with different points of view, and yet equal within the framework of logos. — Athena

I think it very likely that the Founders of our Great Republic, and most of the citizens of ancient Athens, including Solon and Pericles, Plato and Aristotle (while he was there), and maybe even Demosthenes, demagogue though he was, would disagree with the claim that there are "many possible truths that could be valid from different points of view."

But if there are many possible truths which could be valid, who can say? No doubt the Nazis acted consistent with the truth according to their own view of truth.

A "free choice" assumes at least 2 viable options, right? Only 1 viable option among other nonviable options is a trap it seems to me and not a "free choice". The Pope et al can stuff that theidiocy where the Sun don't shine. — 180 Proof

Perhaps another way of looking at is they way a lawyer may do so. A person must make an informed choice in order to waive or release any claims. Were Adam and Eve informed of the consequences of the choice they made? I'd say no, they weren't, but could have been, by God. So, God is arguably responsible for the harm which resulted.

You know the response of the Church, I think. Everything God created was good, but some of what he created became bad. God couldn't make Lucifer and the bad angels, or humans, be good. Love must be freely given. In order to love God free will is required. Unfortunately, Lucifer, his angels and Adam and Eve (with some persuasion from Lucifer, n/k/a Satan) decided not to freely love God because they disobeyed him and even wanted to be like him (love, apparently, requires obedience where God is concerned, and doesn't include trying to be God). And from that sin all bad things began--death, taxes, you name it. It's all our fault, not God's.

Now it could be said that God shouldn't have given us free will, but in that case how would we love God? And why must we love God in order for there to be good, not evil? A good question.

Well, a good Catholic would say that humans, if not evil by nature, are at least sinful by nature by virtue of the disobedience of the first humans. Sinful, however, by propagation rather then imitation, i.e. tainted with sin because human; initially, at least, with no intent to be sinful. Our inherent sinfulness causes us to be inclined towards evil by our nature, but not evil by nature--all the works of God being good.

I don't know if I was ever a good Catholic, but know I'm not one now. Still, I'm inclined to say we're not evil by nature as evil relates to acts or omissions, not existence.

When a philosophical category includes both Friedrich Nietzsche and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel it can no longer be held to have any meaning whatsoever. — thewonder

Substitute "philosophy" for "a philosophical category" and you may come to the same conclusion.

Reality? "The world in which we occur."

he primary reason for this change is because of a strange paradox I came to realize when it comes to our role in the universe. It seems plainly obvious from a scientific perspective that we're basically insignificant in the grand scheme of things, I don't have to explain why. However, we also seem inconceivably beyond the scope of our local planet. We can launch ourselves from the atmosphere, control particles to our whims, and capture the universe in a picture, a far cry from even the most impressive feats of the animal kingdom. The planet for billions of years was a fight for survival, not a toy for us to disregard (in lieu of, perhaps, a shiny red marble). — Jerry

How is this as paradox? Is the claim that we're so significant on our speck of dust compared to the other inhabitants we must be significant enough for there to be a creator?

So, it appears that the extent to which the Christians actually burned classic literature is in dispute among scholars: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Darkening_Age — Hanover

Beware the fury of academic historians when an outsider presumes to write of history!

Nobody knows the true extent of the destruction caused by Christian zealots. But it's not doubted that they destroyed writings, temples and statutes, and defaced them, and that laws were adopted by the Christian Roman Empire outlawing pagan worship, the banning of pagans from high office, the closing of the schools of philosophy and rhetoric and imposing other restrictions. So it becomes a question of how much destruction of pagan culture was caused by those who undoubtedly destroyed aspects of pagan culture and were inclined and exhorted to destroy it. One can claim the only destruction which occurred was not that bad, of course.

Very good. Perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying earlier. I understand that inquiry into the past imposes special demands.

I think it's in the nature of certain religions to make factual claims, however, and claims of certainty. It seems that as time passes adherents are inclined to argue those claims are not to be taken literally or are subject to interpretation, but unless we assume that's always been the case, which would be a questionable assumption to make, the religion is being changed, not explained or justified. The more a religion is changed, the more likely it is that it is that it initially made claims which are incredible.

If you and I were having a chat at a bar, I'd undeniably be a pedant if I denied that it is fact that George Washington was the first president of the United States. There is no quibble. — Ennui Elucidator

Would you say that it isn't a fact that he was the first president of the U.S., though, or that the claim he was is non-factual? This is what you seem to be saying if I understand you correctly.

On a philosophy forum in the context of making broad statements about "religion" with a selective recounting of "facts", I am not sure that my highlighting that we can only look to things that exist now to support our claims about what happened in the past is being a pedant. — Ennui Elucidator

I don't think that would make anyone a pedant. I don't think it follows, though, that our claims about what happened in the past are non-factual. In many cases the things that exist now provide substantial support for claims about what happened in the past. We have (for example) written records which have survived which are consistent with one another though from different sources; we have buildings or structures which have survived, though they may not be entirely intact, the age of which can be determined at least approximately; we have inscriptions, etc.

If absolute certainty is required in order for something to be factual, not many statements will qualify as statements of fact regarding the past or the present. But we can make statements regarding organized religions, what their adherents practiced and believed, what their authorities claimed or demanded or decreed, with a degree of certainty which I think makes it pedantic to claim that all such statements are non-factual--implying if not expressly stating that they're unreliable.

For your reading pleasure - the Catholic Church in response to the Reformation... — Ennui Elucidator

I always take pleasure in reading such things. But I wonder why, given what you quoted and other such works, there is any doubt that religion or at least certain religions rely on claims purported to be factual, and true.

And while I'm (sadly) acquainted with the view that there are no historical facts, and have read academic works on history which are prefaced with what seem to be apologies if the author seems to come to conclusions of any kind regarding what took place in the past, I think it's quite possible, and reasonable, to come to conclusions given the best available evidence, with the understanding that conclusions are contingent and may be modified based on new evidence, when it comes to history and most everything else. It strikes me that maintaining that such conclusions can't be "factual" or that there are no "historical facts" is pedantry.

So far as I can tell from the literature, lots of smart people tried really hard to question those religions in order to establish them as the right one and no one is running around telling adherents not to read the apologists. — Ennui Elucidator

I'm not sure who you have in mind, but I've read some of the apologists for Christianity, and if their work is representative, then apologists merely engage in special pleading. It's not easy to intelligently and in good faith question the doctrines of a religion you've already accepted wholeheartedly. C.S. Lewis is an example of the kind of apologist I have in mind.

Even in its foundation Christianity had multiplicity of thought with warring factions, some of which continued on and some which were snuffed out. — Ennui Elucidator

Those "snuffed out" and later views determined to be heretical make an interesting study, though. Arianism, which taught that Jesus was divine but lesser than the Father; Marcionism, which taught that the God was Jesus was different from the God of the Old Testament; Adoptionism, which taught that Jesus was born a man, but was so virtuous that he was adopted as the "Son of God" by the descent of the Holy Spirit upon him; Sabellianism, which held that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three characteristics of the One God, rather than three "persons" in One God; Pelagianism which rejected the doctrine of original sin and held that grace wasn't required to achieve goodness. The "snuffed" seem to be rather unobjectionable, relatively speaking, in some cases, but were "snuffed" nonetheless. Perhaps this tells us something.

There were many more, of course. I'm not sure which you think "continued" but in the Latin West (and so in much of the Americas and elsewhere) it seems to me that after Nicea and prior to the Reformation one particular version was enforced, often violently. The Protestant Churches haven't been all that tolerant of differing views, either.

The thing is, it isn't necessarily the case that each person, each generation of person, looks upon the past and existing religious beliefs and makes a choice what to think and do. Religions may be instilled, inculcated--like that of Sancta Mater Ecclesia, which I grew up with--which developed an entire system of education from elementary school through college and beyond. Also imposed. This tells us something about organized religion, I believe. Perhaps the goal of organized religions is to teach its adherents not to question them, or at least to assure as much as possible they won't have the opportunity to do so.

Thus erasing the tragedy brought about by the Christians by resurrecting the demolished ancient Roman culture. — Hanover

Not even Christianity could utterly destroy ancient pagan culture. After all, Christians in attempting to provide some intellectual legitimacy to Christianity borrowed liberally from pagan philosophy (mostly neo-Platonism and later aspects of Stoicism and Aristotle's thought) where they could. Early Christians of the upper classes passed through the same cursus honorum and had the same education as similarly situated pagans for a time, until oppression began in earnest after the reign of Constantine.

But a great deal was lost, and there is much that we just can't know, especially when it comes to religious practices, as in most case the only sources we have are the writings of Christians who obviously had an enormous axe to grind. The tragedy can't be erased, unfortunately.

There's nothing to keep someone from opening a church today that worships the Greek and Roman gods. — Hanover

Well, they probably won't open a church, but there are people who worship the ancient Greek and Roman gods even today. The modern ethnic religion called Hellenism is derived from ancient Greek polytheism. The international organization called Nova Roma champions the Cultus Deorum Romanorum, a reconstruction of ancient Roman religion. There are various virtual temples on the Web, including those dedicated to Iupiter, Iuno and Minerva.

He's the fellow who was ecstatic that the writings "of the Greeks have all but perished and been obliterated... Where is Plato? nowhere! Where Paul? In the mouths of all". — Banno

That's the fellow. John "Golden Mouthed." He was renowned for his eloquence, which he learned from his teacher, Libanius of Anitoch, one of the last pagan philosophers and rhetoricians. John turned on him and condemned him. But as a fifth century Christian zealot said, reputedly: "There is no crime for those who have Christ."

One of the best "vehicles"(especially in global scale) for that are religions. All kind of religions. To claim that Christianity is to blame for that, it's ridiculous. As if its teaching is more oppressive, intolerant than others. — dimosthenis9

Yes, I understand. But Christianity has a rather remarkable position in world history, in the West especially, but through European colonialism and imperialism and the priests and missionaries who followed its progression throughout other parts of the world as well. Christianity is, I think, unique in its commitment to expansion.

The Christian Roman Empire actively suppressed paganism and spread the Christian religion throughout the extent of the Empire. The conversion of the barbarian tribes in the Latin West and the acceptance of the supremacy of the Roman pontiff and Church assured its predominance even after the fall of the Western Empire, and continued in the West through the times of the Roman successor states established by the Vandals and Visigoths and Franks, into Medieval times and up to the Reformation. Even after the Reformation, Protestant Christianity was dominant along with Catholicism. The Eastern Orthodox Church was prevalent in the Eastern Roman Empire which continued Roman rule up to the time of the Arab conquests and it and the Eastern Empire held on for about another 700 years.

Priests and monks followed the conquistadors to the Americas, and then the French, and missionaries accompanied the Protestant colonial powers, English and Dutch, there and elsewhere. This led to the suppression of non-Christian religion wherever the Europeans went. Christianity sought converts, and Christians sought land, money and power. That suppression wasn't as successful in India, China or Japan, and Islam replaced it in other areas, but its success in assimilating is astounding.

I also deny the historical accuracy of the Old Testament. That is, that didn't actually happen. — Hanover

I think that most scholars today doubt the conquest of the Promised Land was actually a conquest, and are inclined to think that the Jews didn't destroy the Canaanites, but actually merged with them, though many of them moved into the area now known as Lebanon.

Nor did the Jews lay waste to various other nations because they weren't monotheists.

I'd also argue that the Christians laid waste to all sorts of nations (as did the Romans) for all sorts of reasons that went well beyond religious differences. — Hanover

Well, Biblical accounts, and particularly the Book of Joshua, portray the Jews as laying waste to quite a number of cities and tribes in their conquest of the Promised Land. And though they may not have done so because they weren't monotheists, it can fairly be said they did so because they weren't Jews and didn't worship the Jewish God, who gave the Jews the Promised Land.

As for Christians, I believe you're right and other reasons are involved, but they have such a history of claiming they go to war because God wills it or that God is on their side in war--any war--it may be any reason is religious to them where war is concerned.

Titus did destroy Judea and the Temple in Jerusalem, so to the extent the argument is made that polytheists stand for tolereance over their aggressive monotheistic neighbors, I don't see that — Hanover

The Roman's didn't lay waste to Judea and Jerusalem because the Jews were monotheists.

Not to mention science's intolerance towards the non-scientific. — Thunderballs

It didn't extend to burning the non-scientific at the stake, though, and nobody expects the Scientific Inquisition. not even Monty Python.

he temples were not just left to collapse; they were brought to ruin; the statues did not fall because of mere age; they were pulled down. — Banno

Perhaps the most famous example is the destruction of the Serapeum in Alexandria, around 391 C.E. But the destruction of the Temple of Artemis in Ephesus by order of John Chrysostom, patriarch of Constantinople, which contained the great statute of Artemis considered one of the seven wonders of the ancient world, is up there as well. We're fortunate that the Christians didn't destroy the remarkable Pantheon in Rome, and were content merely to convert it to a church, as they did with many other temples.

Even the obvious fact with Egyptians oppressing Jews, you almost demonstrated that it was Jews fault! — dimosthenis9

Outside of the Old Testament, there's very little evidence of Jews in Egypt, I'm afraid, before the time Egypt became a part of the Persian Empire in the 6th century B.C.E. There's evidence that certain Jews were serving as soldiers in Egypt at that time. There's no evidence they were slaves who built the pyramids; no evidence of the Exodus; no evidence of Moses being somehow affiliated with the Egyptian royal family, or even being there, for that matter, outside of the Bible. No evidence of Joseph and his amazing coat, either. These are simply the founding myths of the Jewish people.

It's apparent that Egypt held sway over what is now Israel from time to time, and it may well be that those who lived there then were oppressed in one way or another, or taken as slaves. But that's all we have, outside of the Bible.

That's sounds like me. Ecce homo!

The Concept of Mind, Gilbert Ryle.

Haha, I never got far enough along in Latin to bother with man's labyrinthine prose! — Michael Zwingli

But he's considered the great master of Latin prose, or was considered so at least. Not that I've read him in Latin, of course, and so can have no opinion, but such was his reputation. He was admired even by Christians, like St. Jerome who was berated in his famous "bad dream"--Ciceronianus es, non Christianus. Erasmus wrote that intellectuals of his time were too inclined to imitate Cicero, and complained that Cicero as a pagan couldn't be a model for a Christian writing Latin (tongue in cheek, perhaps).

I wonder, which other of the Stoic authors may I turn to for an exposition of this topic? — Michael Zwingli

There's very little of the works of the ancient Stoics that now exist, and of which I'm aware, which address the Stoic conception of the deity. You'll find references to God (Zeus) and Providence in Epictetus' Discourses. Marcus Aurelius makes occasional references in his Meditations. Seneca addresses the deity somewhat. There are only fragments of the works of the three "founders" of Stoicism--Zeno, Cleanthes and Chyrisippus--that are now available.

So most of the sources are secondary, and are works of those who read what is not available now. Diogenes Laertius wrote on the lives of the philosophers, including the Stoics, summarizing their views. Cicero was sympathetic to Stoicism and his De Natura Deorum describes the Stoic and other conceptions of God.

A book I've been trying to get is God and Cosmos in Stoicism, edited by Ricardo Salles.

Essentially, according to my understanding, the Stoic deity, sometimes referred to as the Divine Reason, is immanent (the Stoics being materialists). However, it is pneuma, likened to fire or breath, and is the active principle which governs the universe. The Stoic maxim "live in accordance with Nature" is a reference to this divine principle which is a part of Nature but also that which guides it.

I envy you if you can read Latin. My knowledge of it is too spotty to do so.