Roman philosophy might have been standing the shadow of Greek philosophy but it doesn’t impact its value. Perhaps, the fact that philosophy was “born” in Greece impacted and still impacts our view on the history of ideas.
If you enjoy Roman philosophy, by all means, promote it!
Also, based on the philosophers you mentioned, I thought you might enjoy Cicero as well.

Have a good day,

I always say, in philosophy be a Greek, in sexuality, be a Roman! :smile:

:100:

Just out of curiosity: why would you say this?
Also, interesting profile description.

Just out of curiosity: why would you say this? — Dina

The Greeks were known for having superb minds, disciplined thought, the Romans were known for free sexuality, bisexuality and orgies. Though I'm a serious thinker one thing I am not is a moralist or a puritan. I have found that many philosophers are, they retreat to philosophy in an attempt to cope with insecurities, they get deeply offended by sexual freedom. This is actually quite telling. The first thing I would prefer to know about a philosopher is how he or she approaches the topic of sexuality. I would expect everything else to line up accordingly after I knew this.

:smirk:

Thank you for your reply. As a libertarian, I understand some of the elements you have mentioned but then, isn’t it a cliché that the academics are a bit uptight and predictable?

Certainly, the ancient Greeks were infamous for their sexuality as well. I find sound and consistent arguments to be a better criteria over sexuality but, perhaps, you haven’t mentioned all your reasons. For certain, there is some originality in your approach.

All of that said, it lacks charms when somebody attributes good qualities and attributes (”serious thinker“, not being a bigot and the like) to oneself. Unless, you’re called Nietzsche, then that’s fine. Wink wink.

I have found that one seldom gets the opinions of philosophers from reading their philosophy. One almost seems to get everything else, the real beliefs lie hidden. Those who are afraid of sexuality... see it as evil, or morally wrong, perverted, are seldom saying anything about sexuality, but merely manifesting their own psychological defects. They are afraid of the animal they are. I can understand this, we are truly pathetic. When I know that a personal is a sexual moralist it tells me they are afraid of their own humanity, and that their philosophy is very likely to fall into reactionary categories. How could such a thinker, for example, ever develop a truly liberal theory of society, when at base, he or she is afraid of liberalism?

I understand some of the elements you have mentioned but then, isn’t it a cliché that the academics are a bit uptight and predictable? — Dina

Uptight would not be my objection of academics. They do tend to be predictable, but of course, one cannot class every academic in the same category. I have met some truly exceptional academics, but I am indeed against the Ivory Tower culture which seems to be dominant. There is so much that a lay person doesn't understand. Academics have access to thousands of journals that attempt to summarize the latest findings in each field. This is a major advantage among many other advantages, you never hear academics talk about their advantages or privileges, but they do solicit a status of respect from the general population, they even use their knowledge to demarcate themselves from the general population. They live in elite circles. There is much more to say about academics... how they completely failed the liberal culture, essentially allowing fascism to make a comeback in the world. They have failed and continue to fail because they will not engage culture, they engage their academic circles and leave culture to the unrefuted propaganda of Right-wing extremists. Let's see some Left academics come on this philosophy forum, or any public forum that allows detailed exchange, and try to defend their descriptive knowledge against contrary positions. The Right has been doing this for a very long time.

I agree with you when you say that many philosophers have neglected if not despised sexuality at the expenses of many things (holistic approach of humanity, etc.). However, I do not agree that humans are inherently pathetic. When it comes to reactionary of any kind, there is always danger. May it be focused on sexuality and/or else.

Academia has indeed many defects. Where I’m from (France), it is rotten all the way from top to bottom. That doesn’t exclude the existence of exceptional academics among said system. I don’t know where you’re from to know which system you are referring to but, perhaps, this is more of a general statement. As for myself, I can talk only about what I know and even this might be a stretch.

Unfortunately (there is no playfulness in politics), this took a very political turn which I am not fond of but there you go: What is bothering you about privileges (i.e Ivory tower, etc.)? Aren’t people free to enroll in degrees to access such circles? Do you think the layman will benefit to know or even care to know about intellectual matters such as Kantian philosophy? If so, why? What prevents left wing people to come on this forum or any public? What has the right done for such a long time?

NB: These are genuine questions not merely intended to anger you or anything. Although, I would be entitled to do so.

What is bothering you about privileges (i.e Ivory tower, etc.)? — Dina

Evasion of social responsibility, a new kind of unjustified leisure class.

Aren’t people free to enroll in degrees to access such circles? — Dina

You must first be able to afford a degree. Further, I doubt you grew up in the projects, so likely you assume that all schools just offer quality education. Further, if one's social conditions are exceedingly adverse, and may people's are, then this restricts the possibility of even making it through High School. Life is not as simple as free will choices, but people like to cast it this way so they can deny oppression and many other negative attributes, so they can divide the world in terms of simple good and evil.

Do you think the layman will benefit to know or even care to know about intellectual matters such as Kantian philosophy? — Dina

Kant is not a good example of vital education, but yes, comprehending Kant would greatly increase a person's ability to comprehend other non-intuitive, complex structures.

What prevents left wing people to come on this forum or any public? What has the right done for such a long time? — Dina

In my experience Leftists just write blogs or columns or books, they do not engage in polemics, and often when they do it doesn't go so well, this is because it's much easier to write a descriptive book than it is to defend it. The Right on the other hand, though their arguments are based on rational immediacy, they are still making them, and because the culture is so dumbed-down these shallow arguments work. The Right prides itself on rational discourse, and they call the Left out for failing to engage. Milton Friedman was a good example of this. He went from college to college defending his Neo-Liberal view, and what is most telling, you will not be able to find someone on the Left who came out and shut him down. What they did instead is the same thing they are doing today, they dismissed him and made ad hominems against him in academic circles, but they did not refute him. Result: his ideas came to be the main economic ideas in culture. I loath the arrogance of the Left more than the tyranny of the Right.

If you want to read a masterpiece in this direction read Herbert Marcuse, "One Dimensional Man."

I loath the arrogance of the Left more than the tyranny of the Right — JerseyFlight

:100: