Truth, schmuth.

Why care about what "truth" is or search for its definition? We're aware through experience and observation that in life the most accurate judgments, conclusions and assertions are those supported by the best available evidence. What constitutes that evidence may vary; new evidence may arise. That's the way of things. Why expect anything more than that, or seek it, let alone try to define it? What else could be "true"--that which everyone would think is the case after everyone knows everything? That's hardly a meaningful or useful thing to spend our time discussing.

It has been said that each generation has its own Plato. — Fooloso4

Its own Jesus, too, I believe. I wonder if this is characteristic in cases where writings are considered, perhaps not necessarily sacred, but subjects of reverence. They cannot be altered, but must be interpreted as needed to provide support of what "each generation" deems significant.

Or do we suppose that as with the gospels, that the idea of "one true Platonic doctrine" is itself fraught? — Banno

Well, we shouldn't forget that Christianity borrowed a good deal from Platonism, and later Neo-Platonism.

Nothing should be simply accepted as Plato's opinion or conclusion on a matter but rather everything should be subject to question and challenge. — Fooloso4

Your Plato sounds a lot like Dewey. All judgments and conclusions subject to revision, based on new information, the results of experiment and inquiry. That's an interesting interpretation, but I think it's an example of anachronism. It seems to me that Plato is a profoundly conservative figure, which perhaps may be expected in a cousin of Critias, one of the infamous Thirty
Tyrants of Athens.

It was not that Plato tried to make Dion a philosopher-king but that with the urging and help of Dion to first make the tyrant Dionysius and later his son the king Dionysius II more philosophical. Even if Plato had been more successful in improving their character, this is a far cry from making a king a philosopher. — Fooloso4

You're right. I mixed all those Ds up. And I certainly agree that Plato didn't make a tyrant a philosopher.

But I think Plato was being an advocate in The Republic, not just musing. He may have understood that the terrible state he envisioned wasn't likely to arise, but he envisioned it nonetheless, and not merely as a kind of stalking horse. The quest for certainty is poisonous, and Plato valued certainty and perfection.

Since the topic is not Plato, — Fooloso4

Thank heaven.

Plato, like Socrates, was a zetetic skeptic. — Fooloso4

Come now. I've been a lawyer for a long time. I recognize a cross-examination of a very friendly witness; I've done more than a few. In the case of Plato and his sock-puppet Socrates (I don't think it's believed by anyone that Plato was a stenographer, faithfully recording questions asked of the real Socrates and answers given by him), Plato isn't even examining such a witness; he's asking questions he's contrived and answering them as he pleases. He has points to make and uses dialogue as a rhetorical device to make them.

I understand, though, that after he humiliated himself by trying to make a philosopher-king of Dion in Syracuse, he sensibly abandoned the horrible, nightmare Republic he envisioned, and was not as favorable of a system by which we would be led on forced marches to perfection as he deemed it.

That's to his credit. But Plato was an advocate of certain political and philosophical positions, not merely engaged in an academic enterprise.

You can see how totalitarian systems were influenced by Christianity. Stalin studied to be a priest... go figure. — Tom Storm

Oh, yes. Fascism as well.

Stalin, it seems, was very intelligent and well educated for his time and place. He was also a poet, or he wrote poetry in any case. What would Plato, that Original Totalitarian (OT) but scolder of poets, have to say about that? Perhaps Stalin was the philosopher-king Plato longed for all those years ago. Or perhaps Hitler, the artist.

Certainty is the death of thought, and tolerance, and justice, and mercy, and.....

Is the notion of "one, true doctrine", worthy of persecuting the heretic, a contribution from Christianity? — Banno

Yes. There, I said it.

The Jews, though exclusive and intolerant, didn't demand that everyone be Jewish. In fact, it seems they weren't all that happy with the idea. The pre-Christian pagans of antiquity were quite tolerant for the most part. Rome, for example, were never moved to persecute pagan cults, even welcoming that of Cybele, though it was known to forbid certain religious practices in the city it thought scandalous now and then.

It took Christianity to foster the view that not only is there one true God and one true doctrine but that everyone in the world must believe in that God and that doctrine, on pain of persecution and death. Roman persecution of Christians was haphazard and politically motivated. Christian persecution was relentless and omnipresent, practiced by the various sects which emerged from it, and thus the concept of heresy.

But don't forget that chess is also cooperative. Takes two to play a game. — Srap Tasmaner

And to Tango! Let's talk about how philosophy is like the Tango.

You can play it and if you want to resign, you can move on. You can't do that with the "game of life". Simple, but tragic. — schopenhauer1

Yes, if you kill yourself, you die. If you play chess and resign (unless you resign by dying), you don't die. That's because, despite what was maintained by Bobby Fischer, chess isn't life. But what is tragic about that? Death would be an end to suffering. Continuing to live would mean continuing to suffer. If you resign from a game, you continue to suffer. If you "resign" from life, you don't.

But the Roman Catholic Church is the “One, True Church©.” — Art48

The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, you mean. It has those four Attributes, as was decided in 381 C.E. or A.D.


The various schisms in Christianity all began, I think, with arguments over whether Jesus was/is God. Some said yes, some said no. "No" was found not to be quite good enough--he had to be God, in some way. So, some said he was a kind of subordinate divinity, created by the one God. Some said he became God. Others said that he really was God--one in being with the Father--having the same substance, not a similar one, so God became man, though not really man, being also God. Come to think of it, there's only one God, but God has three Persons, Father, Son and Holy Ghost (I prefer Ghost to Spirit). And so it all began, all derived from the seemingly foolish attempt to make someone God but at the same time maintain there's one God. Very different from the friendly pagan belief that a man may be or become a god, but so what? One more god among many.

The point is you are not forced to play chess lest you kill yourself. — schopenhauer1

I don't understand. You're not forced to play chess for fear that (lest) you'll kill yourself?

You’re on it and if you want off, you are out. — schopenhauer1

But that's the case with games, as well. When you resign (e.g., in chess) the game is over--you're out. You may play chess again, but in that case you play a different game, you don't play, again, the game you chose to end by resigning.

No complaining, please.

You cannot resign from life and move on (inter-wordly affairs). — schopenhauer1

Oh, but you can. So says Epictetus:

“Remember that the door is open. Don’t be more cowardly than children, but just as they say, when the game is no longer fun for them, ‘I won’t play any more,’ you too, when things seem that way to you, say, ‘I won’t play any more,’ and leave, but if you remain, don’t complain.” (Discourses I.24.20)

But that's the point of the debate.. At one point some people thought slavery was moral and ethical system as well as medieval cruel and unusual punishment, and inquisitions, and total conquest of a peoples, etc. etc. Doesn't mean it's right! — schopenhauer1

Certainly not. I'm not at all sure, though, that there are many who claim that people should have children under any circumstances, because it's moral and ethical to do so. If antinatalists maintain that we should exercise reasonable judgment in determining whether to have children, who could object to that? But that's not what they maintain, by my understanding (if I'm wrong, please let me know).

A lot of people are born to parents unfit to raise them. This does not negate the child’s argument for antinatalism. — Deus

The child makes no such argument. Antinatalism as I understand it is absolute in its condemnation. Depending on age, a child may wish it hadn't been born to the child's parents (and we should wish that as well if they're unfit), but it wouldn't maintain it's wrong for anyone to have children under any circumstances, nor should we.

Ah, another post about antinatalism. That, in itself, is an argument in its favor in a sense. Not only do its adherents maintain that to live is to suffer, but they repeat the claim over and over again, thus assuring that some misery, at least, will be experienced. A confirmation of the claim that to live is to suffer.

Being born is not something we ask for nor something we can reject due to not existing before the point of our own nascent being. — I like sushi

Rather like being alive. We don't ask to be alive, nor do we reject it. It's simply the case. Whether or not to kill ourselves is a question, involving a number of considerations, involving considerations of morality and other things. Whether or not to have children is a question, also involving consideration of morality and other things. Only those who crave for certainty would claim the answer to either question is certain. Others are doomed to think.

Christianity, for the most part, denigrates the world of which we're a part (and sometimes even deplores it). What's truly important isn't this life, but the next. This world isn't real; Cardinal Newman wrote that he always thought this world wasn't real, as I recall.

It's unsurprising that those brought up and invested in this doctrine were at their wits end when they began to understand it was baseless. I think frantic efforts were made to resurrect Christianity, or to replace it in some sense, as a result.

I don't know too much about Rome, but the story of Romulus and Remus does strike me. I don't know how important these ancient myths are or their importance within the culture. It does give me reason to pause, however, when a culture's founding tale involves bloodshed, especially between brothers -- it just seems to start a questionable precedence. — Moses

Well, it was a dispute among brothers, which led to bloodshed, but Remus wasn't killed by Romulus. The dispute was over where the city to be known as Rome was to be founded. Remus preferred the Aventine Hill, Romulus the Palatine Hill. The brothers agreed to settle the dispute by recourse to the practice of augury, which involved prediction through the observed behavior of birds (thought to have originated with the Etruscans). I don't know the details of the ritual, but it was performed and Remus saw six birds while Romulus saw 12, meaning, it seems, that the gods chose the Palatine Hill.

Remus refused to accept the result, and commenced building his city on the Aventine. Romulus began building his on the Palatine. Romulus began building a city wall, but while it was being built Remus climbed over it and began to insult his brother. Violence broke out, and one of Romulus' followers killed Remus. Romulus saw to it that his brother was accorded all honors and an appropriate burial.

It's thought that the myth of the brothers was significant to Romans because they first triumphed over adversity together, avoiding death initially by being suckled by a she-wolf, then raised by a shepherd, and succeeding ultimately in gaining revenge against the king who wanted them murdered, knowing their semi-divine origins (through Mars and their human mother). So, unity among Romans led to their success. But Remus broke that unity, and refused to follow the choice of the gods, and so was killed.

. I think a substantial case could be made that Christianity, inherently, is more war-like than Judaism in that they envision a figure of pure evil (the Devil) that must be opposed (usually by force) as opposed to Judaism which has no such equivalent. Christianity is also a religion specifically designed to spread and influence other cultures, as explained in the Gospels. Again, this is not a Jewish quality. In sum, I think Christian violence in that period is reasonably understood as the continuation of the Gospel and not in contrast to it. — Moses

All good points. I've read that there was some effort to convert Gentiles to Judaism during the Empire, but nothing extensive. Frankly, I have no idea if that's true or not. I doubt there was anything extensive or any coordinated effort, though, because you're right--Christians are enjoined to spread Christianity. It ties into the Christian version of what took place at Pentecost after Jesus was crucified, I think. Jews, on the other hand, are notso enjoined, to my knowledge.

Jews were not particularly tolerant of pagan practices, of coursed, as we know from the two great revolts against Roman rule, but except in the case of rioting between Jews and pagans in Alexandria, Jews were reacting to the spread or imposition of pagan religion within Israel itself and not trying to impose Judaism on others or beyond the land they thought they'd been promised.

Intolerance combined with the belief that they were commanded to spread the Gospel would be likely to result in violence. I think you're correct. I'm sometimes overwhelmed by the rather bloodthirsty rhetoric of the Old Testament, it seems. But again, it can be argued that the violence was to be employed in conquering a certain area in particular, as opposed to the entire world.

The Roman Empire even got to name its God: "Jesus" is a Roman name like Brutus, Aurelius, etc. — Art48

Well, no, not really. No "J" in Latin, you see. So it became "Iesus", derived from the Greek spelling, in turn derived from the Aramaic and Hebrew forms, Yeshua or Y'shua.

You might suspect a State such as the Roman Empire would choose a religion that serves it, a religion designed to help the State be strong and be able to defeat its enemies. — Art48

It's appropriate to note that Christianity didn't become the official religion of the Empire until the 4th century C.E. By that time Rome had already reached its greatest extent. In fact, it was somewhat less than its greatest extent, some of Trajan's conquests having been lost or abandoned. So the establishment of the Empire was accomplished while most of the citizens of the Empire worshipped pagan gods, but not one in particular, pagans, unlike Christians, being quite tolerant for the most part. Sol Invictus was favored as the high god for a time, from Aurelian on, but nothing permanent.

But Christianity, once established, was zealous and relentless in assuring its predominance, and was thus imperial in its own way, that way being the suppression of any other beliefs by any means necessary. And of course Christians, when they differed with one another, were inspired to kill off or repress their erring co-religionists, and did so for many centuries. So it may be said Christianity or those who profess to be Christians have always favored war of one sort or another, despite the Gospels, and more in the spirit of the tribal god of the Jews according to the Old Testament.

We spend so much time wiping our behinds, I don't see how we can't know that we each have one. If, then, we each have a behind, it follow there's always one behind us.

Excessive thinking habits are a leftover from our past. — Seeker

There's a parallel here with excessive food consumption as well, — Seeker

Well, there's bound to be fewer leftovers given excessive food consumption, so perhaps excessive thinking isn't that much of a problem. In any case, let's refrain from thinking about it, and not add to any excess, just in case.

You're right, as I was taking too narrow a perspective. What I was thinking of was the debate whether the change of roles in society, as you describe it, is good or bad, "natural" or "unnatural." That doesn't interest me, at least. I think the likelihood is that humanity will change in many respects over time, given advances in technology and population, tribal gods, superstitions and cultural atavism notwithstanding. Assuming we don't manage to destroy ourselves or the planet, ways will have to be created to address those changes in an orderly and, one hopes, equitable fashion.

For me, these issues have little interest beyond their implications for the law. Any qualms people may feel due to religious beliefs, or political or cultural beliefs for that matter, are of concern only if they cause harm, and I mean harm as something beyond hurt feelings. One should do what one can to avoid insulting or disparaging others--that should go without saying, but if it doesn't there are limits to what can be done about it. Something can be done, through the law, in cases of violence, repression or discrimination.

Escape from "existential angst" by denying, rather than affirming, existence – how the Shepherd pacifies the sheep into bleeting happily on their way to slaughter. :mask: — 180 Proof

An excellent point. In which case, the Stoic and Epicurean insights I thought were being repeated are instead being perverted, and used for an entirely different purpose, contra naturam. rather than secundum naturam.

Ancient pagan philosophers made similar statements in recommending the proper way to live centuries before the gospels were written. As guidance in that respect, they may serve that purpose. I'm not sure there's much else which can be said of them.

If the uses to which they've been put since they were written is any indication, though, I think it's difficult to maintain they were intended only as a remedy for "existential angst."

If only Lewis had died in that train wreck, too.

Poor old Lewis. If only he had died in that train wreck, too.

Can't delete, alas.

Dicens, advena fui in terra aliena.
[Moses] :flower: :ok: — javi2541997

I always figured Moses was a Roman. Well, as much as he was a prince of Egypt, anyway.

A genuine word of God would, I think, be very big if written, and very loud if said.

It is ironic that to be someone who has a mind that searches for meaning that the results of that search are often meaningless when related to others. — introbert

Example of irony: Yes. That's certainly ironic.

The same thing applies to white people crying over "reverse racism" whenever some random person on the Internet says something not nice about white people that hurts their fee-fees. Chill out already you privileged fucks. — _db

The appeal to equal treatment is a common dodge indulged in by those obviously better off and better treated than others, who resent being reminded of this and who will do nothing to remedy the situation.

It's an egregious disregard of context. One of my favorite quotes about the law is this, attributed to Anatole France: "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets and to steal bread." Ah, irony. How I love you.

Any specific trigger? — Amity

If it has nothing to do with Heidegger, or phenomenology, or antinatalism, or God, it's presumed not to be philosophy in this place. It's your burden to overcome the presumption.

Forgot Nietzsche, dammit.

I tend to think of billionaires, and persons of great wealth, as equivalent to gluttons or hoarders in circumstances where food and resources are unavailable to many others. They have no need of their wealth and property, which serve only their own pleasures. Like gluttons and hoarders, they evoke a kind of disgust or loathing; but gluttons and hoarders often are victims of compulsions, and so may be pitied and assisted.

There shouldn't be billionaires, but they're allowed to exist in the current system.

That of Gregory Hays or Robin Hard. They're more modern translations. Hard's contains correspondence between Marcus and Fronto, his rhetoric teacher, which are interesting.

Remind me Ciceronianus - what is to be virtuous? — Amity

Very Socratic of you. From the Stoic perspective (more specifically from the IEP which gives a decent summary, I think:

The Stoics elaborated a detailed taxonomy of virtue, dividing virtue into four main types: wisdom, justice, courage, and moderation. Wisdom is subdivided into good sense, good calculation, quick-wittedness, discretion, and resourcefulness. Justice is subdivided into piety, honesty, equity, and fair dealing. Courage is subdivided into endurance, confidence, high-mindedness, cheerfulness, and industriousness. Moderation is subdivided into good discipline, seemliness, modesty, and self-control. Similarly, the Stoics divide vice into foolishness, injustice, cowardice, intemperance, and the rest. The Stoics further maintained that the virtues are inter-entailing and constitute a unity: to have one is to have them all. They held that the same virtuous mind is wise, just, courageous, and moderate. Thus, the virtuous person is disposed in a certain way with respect to each of the individual virtues. To support their doctrine of the unity of virtue, the Stoics offered an analogy: just as someone is both a poet and an orator and a general but is still one individual, so too the virtues are unified but apply to different spheres of action.

I like the "and the rest."

Hammond suggests that Marcus only advocates the penetration of others' minds all the better to identify their deficiencies.
Also that Marcus just as often dismisses others' thoughts as a distraction.
(Other sections cited as evidence). — Amity

As Hadot and others have noted, what we call The Meditations is an example of Stoic practice; reminding oneself of Stoic maxims and their application to daily life. This leads to the repetition of certain themes and ideas, and doesn't mean that you're obsessed with them.

The opinions of others that are referred to are generally their opinions regarding the Emperor--what they thought of him, what he wanted them to think of him. Whether they think bad of you or good of you, their opinions of you ultimately have nothing to do with how you should live your life (virtuously, of course). You shouldn't act to please others or win their admiration; you shouldn't disturb yourself if they think ill of you. Just be virtuous, regardless of how you're perceived by others.

Hammond should have spent more time playing with his organ. Get it? Tee hee.

"What is religion?" said jesting Ciceronianus; and would not stay for an answer.