The death of Philosophy and the Rise of Christianity

[Kain]

I love learning about Ancient Greece. Its one of my all-time favorite things to do. It was an age of philosophy and huge discoveries. Their surgeries were more like today's surgery and far more effective than the types of surgery that has dominated most of 'Modern' society.

 

Of course, the Greeks fell to the Romans, but everything stayed true to the previous course. For a little while, atleast.

 

Christianity came to power across the known-world. Soon after, the time period known as Medival came about. Before this though, the world, as a whole, had become less philisophical and more superstitious. The Dark Ages were the shining light of the stupidity of superstition brought on by the age of Christianity. People no longer had to think for themselves - they had to serve this one God who'd smite them with eternal damnation if they did otherwise. Once revered Cats became heralds of Satan during these dark ages and where burned by the hundreds. Thanks to superstition and stupidity, the Black Death wiped out 1/3 of Europe's population. Medical attention became a joke and remained so for more than a millenia. Amputations and blood-letting replaced casts and actual medical attention.

 

So then the Reniscannce(sp?) rolls around and philosophy makes its huge return - and the Church becomes a power hungry monster feeding on the wanton salvation of its people. They begin playing on the fears and doubts of the population and the Return of Philosophy is cut down in its prime - just in time for the Colonization of the Americas.

 

Since then, few, if any, true Philosophers have arisen. They've become ancient stories of a time long since past and thus have no true baring in the common man's life.

 

Discuss your feelings on Christianity's theoretical death-grip on Philosophy.

[Spider AL]

Frankly there will always be large groups of people who want to manipulate others to gain power, and will spread dogma and misinformation in order to do so. They don't have to be the Christian Church.

 

There were such non-christian men in ancient greece who enjoyed stamping on philosophy, just as fundamentalists do today. The factions that desired the death of Socrates, for instance.

 

Since then, few, if any, true Philosophers have arisen.

Philosophy = love of wisdom. So many modern thinkers qualify. Chomsky, to name but one. Bruce Lee's another.

[Leper Messiah]

well these days i dont see Christianity as being a controlling force in philosophy rather than a branch of it. Christian philosophies dont control modern thinking but a system of philosophical beliefs that when applied bring certain opinions on various subjects. Christianity is just a very vocal part of modern thinking, but just cos you shout, doesnt make your way the most important way

[stingerhs]

i agree whole-heartedly. i've failed time and time again to see the logic behind the early christian church after the events documented in the new testament. its like everyone suddenly decided to add a hierarchy to the church and removed all the personal involvement with God from the laiety to the 'glorified and santified' priests, bishops, cardinals, etc.

 

after that occured, it was all to easy for people to rely far too heavily on the church (granted, the church abused its power to ensure that the people relied on them). the church, of course, consistantly put down ideas that would remove God from being the only way to accomplish healings, natural phenomenon, etc. since doctors were banned from practicing real medicine (and since they couldn't learn real medicine), all people could rely on was the church (which only offered the hope of the priest praying for your sickness) or superstitions.

 

i still believe that some of this mind-set of relying too heavily on religious crap still hampers the modern church from doing hardly anything right. they rely on old dogmas and "tradition" to get things done. thus, the modern fundalmentalist movement. over the span of a thousand years, the church still relies on itself to get things done instead of leaning on God's word, and i mean all of the Bible, not one or two passages. if they would do that, then i highly doubt they would cause the problems they are associated with.

[TK-8252]

Heh, we're studying Greece in history class.

 

Weren't all Greek men bisexual?

[Kain]

Originally posted by TK-8252

Weren't all Greek men bisexual?

 

Even if they were, it wasn't frowned upon as it is today.

[El Sitherino]

Because they understood there was nothing wrong with it.

[Mike Windu]

Homosexuality was common among Greek athletes.

 

 

But let's try to keep this issue out of the philosophy debate. We all know where homosexuality debates take us.

 

[Druid Bremen]

Philosophy is a way of thinking that guide's a person's actions in life. Religion is the belief in the existence a god/gods, which usually have to be worshipped. The reason why I dislike religion, besides the sheer improbability of it, is the way the modern world twists it into something that suits its purposes. I agree with Kain, for Christianity doesn't seem to be having a very nice effect on philosophy.

 

 

 

 

Got to go now, will post here later.

[Spider AL]

Even if they were, it wasn't frowned upon as it is today.

The sexualisation of history by leftist revisionists is rampant these days. Yes, sexual perversion was common in many ancient Greek states at certain periods of their history (The Athenians were a little dodgy), but there's quite a lot of evidence that it WAS in fact frowned upon in many other states, notably early Sparta. I'm sick and tired of people proclaiming that everyone from Jesus to King Arthur to Robin Hood was ghey! Merry men eh, suggestive eh?

 

WHO CARES if they were gay? Who cares if they were straight? Is it relevant to their historical impact? No it's bloody not. It's merely revisionist propaganda and nonsense. It's thoroughly distasteful too, just as dwelling on Robin Hood's humping of Marian would be distasteful.

 

Philosophy is a way of thinking that guide's a person's actions in life.

That's a subordinate and modern definition. It is mainly, and originally was regarded merely as, the search for / love of wisdom. Being spiritual is merely a facet of self-knowledge, so religion is not necessarily damaging to philosophy...

 

Fundamentalist government is very damaging to the search for wisdom, however. So in the US, christianity is damaging to philosophy, while in the UK, christianity doesn't have much of a damaging effect on anyone's search for wisdom, because it's so low-key. That's the way religion should be, low-key. Personal to the individual.

[Redwing]

My feelings are this: I wholeheartedly disagree with the actions that what is supposedly 'my' Church did once Constantine embraced it. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. However, I also hold that if extremist Christianity hadn't done it, some other extremist religion would have.

 

Oh, and the Church being a wanton power-hungry monster happened way before the Renaissance. "When Rome comes by, draw your purse strings shut."

[lukeiamyourdad]

Err...Philosophy can create bad people too you know.

 

Plato was pretty elitist. Not that he was a bad man but you know...elitist...

[Spider AL]

Err...Philosophy can create bad people too you know.

I don't think that the love of wisdom can "create" bad people.

[lukeiamyourdad]

Perhaps "create" and "bad" is a wrong choice of words.

 

But you must know, wisdom is relative. One might think the way he does things is best. If you've read a bit of Plato, you'll know he's an elitist. Though he isn't a bad person, he certainly favored certain humans to be superior to others.

 

 

Anyway, which philosopher is right then? Sartre? Kant? Descartes? Plato? Socrates? Aristotle? Buddha?

[toms]

Originally posted by stingerhs

i agree whole-heartedly. i've failed time and time again to see the logic behind the early christian church after the events documented in the new testament. its like everyone suddenly decided to add a hierarchy to the church and removed all the personal involvement with God from the laiety to the 'glorified and santified' priests, bishops, cardinals, etc.

 

This is the bit i don't get.

 

It is natural for large organisations to slowly become buracratic and drift from their initial purpose, but it seems like the VERY EARLY church went mad with creating new rules, powers and philosophies from out of thin air.

 

This does seem rather suspicious to me, as these should have been the people with the most "pure" faith, that were closest to the original message of jesus and least likely to corrupt it, but within a very short period of time they seem to have decided to make fundamental changes.

 

Which, to me, implies that they didn't have a lot of faith in the original message....

[TheLiberator34]

Eh, to me philosophy is a excersize of the intellect. And it can be used to justify bad actions just as much as religion can. Don't forget people like Machiavelli who's philisophy was one of manipulation and ambition. Intellect and philosophy can justify all sorts of bad behavior.

[Ray Jones]

philosophy is the "love for wisdom".

[Spider AL]

But you must know, wisdom is relative. One might think the way he does things is best.

Philosophy is not "knowledge", nor even wisdom, but the love of wisdom. The desire for wisdom. As such, it cannot be a bad thing. Full stop.

 

If you've read a bit of Plato, you'll know he's an elitist. Though he isn't a bad person, he certainly favored certain humans to be superior to others.

Well... aren't they? Aren't those who seek the truth better than those who are wilfully ignorant? I think they are.

 

Anyway, which philosopher is right then? Sartre? Kant? Descartes? Plato? Socrates? Aristotle? Buddha?

Technically Socrates, since he rarely if ever voiced his own opinion, merely enquired about the opinions of others. So since he said so little, he was right more often.

 

But frankly, does it matter which philosopher is "right"? Is that question relevant? Surely the first level of wisdom is the realisation that there is no "perfect", only "better"?

 

Philosophy being the love of wisdom... can it ever be inherently negative? EVER?

[TheLiberator34]

I believe philosophy can have a negative side. Because a philosophy is like a scientific hypothesis, it requires testing in real life in order to find out whether it has a desired result. Sometime the theories of philosophers can lead to bad practices. As for philosophy being defined as a "love of wisdom" I think that's way off. Because everyone's definition of what wisdom is can be totally different. Rather philosophy seems to more of an excersize of the mind to figure out it's reality.

[Spider AL]

As for philosophy being defined as a "love of wisdom" I think that's way off.

"phi·los·o·phy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (f-ls-f)

n. pl. phi·los·o·phies

 

Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline.

 

Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods."

 

Because everyone's definition of what wisdom is can be totally different.

"wis·dom ( P ) Pronunciation Key (wzdm)

n.

 

The ability to discern or judge what is true, right, or lasting; insight.

 

Common sense; good judgment: “It is a characteristic of wisdom not to do desperate things” (Henry David Thoreau).

 

\Wis"dom\ (-d[u^]m), n. [AS. w[imac]sd[=o]m. See Wise, a., and -dom.] 1. The quality of being wise; knowledge, and the capacity to make due use of it; knowledge of the best ends and the best means; discernment and judgment; discretion; sagacity; skill; dexterity.

 

n 1: accumulated knowledge or erudition or enlightenment 2: the trait of utilizing knowledge and experience with common sense and insight [syn: wiseness] [ant: folly] 3: ability to apply knowledge or experience or understanding or common sense and insight [syn: sapience] 4: the quality of being prudent and sensible [syn: wiseness, soundness]"

 

I believe philosophy can have a negative side. Because a philosophy is like a scientific hypothesis, it requires testing in real life in order to find out whether it has a desired result.

Firstly, "philosophy" and "A philosophy" are two different things. Philosophy is merely the love of wisdom, A philosophy on the other hand is a system of values by which one lives. TOTALLY different connotations, so don't confuse them. Therefore philosophy cannot be inherently negative. A philosophy can be negative, but that's not what we're discussing. As for "scientific testing", most of the great philosophers compiled their precepts through observation of the world around them, not "experimentation" in the active sense.