Classics were studied in the middle ages...
Atheists are stereotypically known to recognize and contest religion at every turn, not ignore it
There was some study of classics, but for the most part there was a lot more done to suppress classical ideas. I don't disagree that there was some study and preservation, my understanding it is was overwhelmingly suppressed. I reviewed the destruction of the library of Alexandria, and while there appear to be many events that involved destruction of various libraries at various times, most of it apparently by Caesar, for reasons that seem mostly accidental/political, and some controversy over claims regarding what role Muslim conquest played in destruction of works there, what does seem clear and uncontested is that Christian Emperor Theodosius ordered a pagan wipe to include destruction of the library in Alexandria in the 4th century. There are plenty of other examples of Medieval Christianity trying to throw baby with the bathwater ideas that were "pagan" by virtue of association with pre-Christian religions/cultures, despite in hindsight some of ideas being of extreme worth from biological standpoint, and not really at odds with anything in the Bible.
For example, one of the major factors leading to the Plague and the death of 1/3 of Europeans was that cats were hunted almost to extinction around that time, leading to rat overpopulation (not the only factor in the epidemic). Why the superstition against cats? Part of it was reactionary to pagan appreciation of cats. Egyptians worshipped them, and the Romans greatly admired them. They were the only animals allowed in the temples, considered the God of Liberty, and kept as mascots by the Roman army. Most Roman households had them. The rise of the house cat was historically linked to early agricultural societies that stored grain, and hence, attracted mice, to the consternation of humans, and cats, to the delight of humans. The Norse goddess Freyja was depicted as riding in a chariot drawn by cats. Romans brought the cat with them to Britain, although the cat may have already been present there. There are other examples, Eastern, of exaltation of the cat. Muslims revere cats. Where the appearance of a hatred of the cat is most clear in history, was the Christian religion, and felt to be part of the suppression of "pagan" values. The cat is not mentioned in the Bible, which could be considered a sign of disapproval, but then again nothing negative is written, and there are plenty of other species not mentioned in the Bible that were never subjected to persecution on that basis alone.
Fair enough, bad example.
So I'm not sure if you meant to come across like this, but I don't particularly care for the implication that because I disagree with you, I must be woefully ignorant and uneducated on the matter. I'm quite sure I've read as much Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, etc as the next guy. My problem is with the modern day incarnations of sociology/anthropology, and only then a particular subset. In any case, I'll cut to the chase and ask you to name a few direct Christian influences on modern-day Western intellectuals. I could name at least half a dozen or so for Marx. So if your theory is correct, this shouldn't be too difficult for you. After that we can go over whatever specific examples you give.
On a side note, I'm very curious who your avatar is??? Kind of looks like Chloe Sevigny lol
My avatar is the fictional character Starbuck, from the Battlestar Galactica television show, a modern reboot of n 70's show. She's military, the best pilot in the fleet, but insubordinate, a personal train wreck, an overall screw up when she's not doing her job, and likes to **** and drink her emotional problems away, and is also religious. In some ways I'm like her, and in other ways I can't give myself that much credit, but she's unarguably a badass that I admire.
Yeah, I was being a dick to you. I've read some more back and forth between you,
@StudyLater, and I see that you guys are talking more about modern philosophy and stuff. I've been watching a lot of Spartacus: Blood and Sand, Xena: Warrior Princess, and Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, as well as teaching one of my parents a lot about Western History while they have been visiting me and we've been watching this stuff.
I was going back to
http://www.unc.edu/courses/2008fall/hist/151/007/Outlines/1.Introduction.htm
http://www.unc.edu/courses/2008fall/hist/151/007/Outlines/2.Hebrews.htm
to talk about how there are some ideas that originated with the Hebrews, the Romans, the Christians, that are still part of our everyday bread and butter way of thinking that it would be easy to take for granted
the above links are some **** I grabbed by googling
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/003380.html
I liked this exchange. This is a Catholic that was having an exchange with a Pagan Westerner.
I find myself mostly agreeing with both representations of history, and disagreeing with viewpoints at either extreme.
From the above:
"An important principle of this Christian civilization was St. Augustine’s division of the world into the City of God and the City of Man. This in turn was based on Jesus’ all-important statement, “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and render unto God what is God’s.” This articulation of the world into the secular realm and the spiritual realm is a keynote of Western culture and distinguishes it from all other civilizations. It limits the power of the state over the individual, which makes it quite different from the classical civilization, where there was no inherent limit to political power and men belonged to the state. Classical citizenship was very different from modern Western (and Christian) citizenship.
Our very notion of individualism, of an inviolable individual self, is a product of Judaism and Christianity, in which God is above man and creates man and gives each person a potential value which no human power has the right to violate. This concept did not come from the classical heritage. It came from Judaism and Christianity."
Nietzsche is a philosopher I greatly admire, and really helped me to re-examine the precepts of a Judeo-Christian faith.
From the main page wikipedia titled for his name:
The "slave revolt" in morals
Main article:
Master–slave morality
In
Beyond Good and Evil and
On the Genealogy of Morality, Nietzsche's
genealogical account of the development of modern moral systems occupies central place. For Nietzsche, a fundamental shift took place during human history from thinking in terms of "good" and "bad" toward "good" and "evil".
The initial form of morality was set by a warrior
aristocracy and other ruling castes of ancient civilizations. Aristocratic values of "good" and "bad" coincided with and reflected their relationship to lower castes such as slaves. Nietzsche presents this "master morality" as the original system of morality—perhaps best associated with Homeric Greece. To be "good" was to be happy and to have the things related to happiness: wealth, strength, health, power, etc. To be "bad" was to be like the slaves over which the aristocracy ruled, poor, weak, sick, pathetic—an object of pity or disgust rather than hatred.
"Slave morality" comes about as a reaction to master-morality. Here, value emerges from the contrast between good and evil: good being associated with other-worldliness, charity, piety, restraint, meekness, and submission; and evil seen as worldly, cruel, selfish, wealthy, and aggressive. Nietzsche sees slave morality as pessimistic and fearful, values for them serving only to ease the existence for those who suffer from the very same thing. He associates slave-morality with the Jewish and Christian traditions, in a way that slave-morality is born out of the
ressentiment of slaves. Nietzsche argued that the idea of equality allowed slaves to overcome their own condition without hating themselves. And by denying the inherent inequality of people (such as success, strength, beauty or intelligence), slaves acquired a method of escape, namely by generating new values on the basis of rejecting something that was seen as a perceived source of frustration. It was used to overcome the slave's own sense of inferiority before the (better-off) masters. It does so by making out slave weakness to be a matter of choice, by, e.g., relabeling it as "meekness." The "good man" of master morality is precisely the "evil man" of slave morality, while the "bad man" is recast as the "good man."
Nietzsche sees the slave-morality as a source of the nihilism that has overtaken Europe. Modern Europe and Christianity exist in a hypocritical state due to a tension between master and slave morality, both values contradictorily determining, to varying degrees, the values of most Europeans (who are
motley). Nietzsche calls for exceptional people to no longer be ashamed of their uniqueness in the face of a supposed morality-for-all, which he deems to be harmful to the flourishing of exceptional people. He cautions, however, that morality, per se, is not bad; it is good for the masses, and should be left to them. Exceptional people, on the other hand, should follow their own "inner law." A favorite motto of Nietzsche, taken from
Pindar, reads: "Become what you are."
A long standing assumption about Nietzsche is that he preferred master over slave morality. However, the Nietzsche scholar
Walter Kaufmann rejected this interpretation, writing that Nietzsche's analyses of these two types of morality were only used in a
descriptive and historic sense, they were not meant for any kind of acceptance or glorifications.
[100]
I'm inclined, based on what I know of the differences between Roman culture, and Hebrew culture, and agreeing with Nietzsche, is to say Western Civilization's overall nice-nice policy within our ranks stems more from Biblical values. Romans really had a "might makes right" approach to life, even amongst themselves. A discussion has occurred in the thread "Should MDs take a paycut to make healthcare more affordable" that talks about general rules for humans which come down to 1) killing and robbery are ALWAYS allowed, the question is to whom. So yes, Romans and Hebrews thought it was OK to murder outsiders and have slaves. I would just argue that Hebrew slavery had certain features associated with it that were very unique to any culture allowing slavery.
"The Torah forbids the return of runaway slaves who escape from their foreign land and their bondage and arrive in the Land of Israel. Furthermore, the Torah demands that such former slaves be treated equally to any other resident alien. This law is unique in the Ancient Near East." Torture was never officially condoned, unlike in Rome.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_slavery
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Rome
And going back to the point above,
"Our very notion of individualism, of an inviolable individual self, is a product of Judaism and Christianity, in which God is above man and creates man and gives each person a potential value which no human power has the right to violate. This concept did not come from the classical heritage. It came from Judaism and Christianity."
Basically, as the Nietzsche summary "presents this "master morality" as the original system of morality—perhaps best associated with Homeric Greece. To be "good" was to be happy and to have the things related to happiness: wealth, strength, health, power, etc. To be "bad" was to be like the slaves over which the aristocracy ruled, poor, weak, sick, pathetic—an object of pity or disgust rather than hatred."
Essentially, what I think Western Civilization owes to its monotheistic heritage is that while the rich, strong, healthy in our society would likely be better off in a pre-Biblical society, whatever limp-wristed-ness we ascribe to "slave morality" makes being an average human being, and certainly the weak, poor, widow, orphan, the most disadvantaged, better off.
Someone mentioned that likely each religion is just a reflection of its society. Point is, while in the East, without as strong an influence of Judeo-Christian mores, there has still been evolution of socialism, and without Darwin we would still have someone else to thank for the theory of evolution and what advances in human conditions as a result, whatever is the "historical" origin of something, still gets some credit in the historical record.
I'm a huge fan of soft sciences.
My education is actually lacking a lot more from World War 2 beyond. I know more about Latin America from that point on than I do about US or modern history/philosophy.
At the very least a similar type of hierarchy still exists, albeit based on different discriminatory variables.
Certainly relevant. I don't bother much with it anymore as I don't occupy the position of a powerful person, and therefore I don't need to bother with the oldest manuals on how to manipulate others while crushing all opposition.
Though I would say if I'm going to occupy my time reading fiction (and I do every now and again), then I may as well be reading history - I could probably get something more relevant out of it. Though I do believe fiction has its own sort of relevance. You could consider each work a hypothetical study on human psychology/sociology, and in certain cases it can function as a history lesson (i.e. Pride and Prejudice a hypothetical case study on the importance of wealth, class, and prestige during England's Regency Period).
Recognizing those effects seems like a liesure activity. If you can derive some practical use from it, then we could talk.
**** man, everything I just wrote was some form of mental masturbation.
Naw, I'm trying to make a point that I somehow read Daniel Dennett's book "Breaking the Spell:Religion as a Natural Phenomenon", Nietzsche, and all the rest of it, and I can't say I disagree with any atheist argument in particular, except that I still believe that we can't say that there hasn't been positive contributions to society from the dissemination of religious concepts if we look at all of what we know of human history.
Has it outgrown its usefulness? Is it holding us back now?
Like any idea or concept or guiding principle or anything, humans are adaptive creatures, and anything we're using to adapt has to be updated and discarded and evolved.
Personally, I think that magical thinking is not likely to ever go away completely. I have read and like a lot of the neuroscience around how our brains process chance, reward, statistics, game theory, optimism, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
(wikipedia article "futile medical care"
In a study of patients so severely burned that survival was clinically unprecedented, during the initial lucid period (before sepsis and other complications set in) patients were told that survival was extremely unlikely (i.e., that death was essentially inevitable) and were asked to choose between palliative care and aggressive clinical measures. Most chose aggressive clinical measures, which may suggest that the
will to live in patients can be very strong even situations deemed hopeless by the clinician.[
citation needed])
Clinging to life in the face of any odds? Likely easier from an evolutionary standpoint to program and maintain in the individual than more nuanced approaches, and I subscribe to the idea that ideas are being generated and changes generated in advance of our brain's ability to fully process. This all gets more difficult when you get into evolutionary theories about groups and not at the individual level.
my favorite:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_bias
, ZedsDed's dating life, a Fancy cameo, and even Gandy's app cycle!
