Why the Worship of Ancient Greece and Rome?

[exchemist]

Google indicates the witch thing started in the middle ages.

Can you give a link?

 

[Polymath257]

But then the Church threw or tried to throw the separation of religion and government out of the window at multiple later points--up to and including ones in the present age--and enabled various crimes and abusive practices as a result.

Neither medieval achievements nor later shortcomings give the full picture.

Most societies have not had a separation of religion and government at all. If anything, it is a new thing in medieval Europe because of the separate Roman derivation of the church and German derivation of the government.

 

[Nakosis]

These societies were horrible to 90% of the folks who lived in them, so why does Western society glorify them so much?

The Neanderthal existed 300,000 years with almost no technological advancement. They learn to live with nature.
Within 5000 years of coming across "modern man" they became extinct.

Technical advance means someone is always going to have an advantage over others. The technological advanced of Greece and Rome gave them an advantage in war.
When they lost their advantage, they ceased to be relevant.

Even today, the US tend to push it's ideas onto other countries via its technical advantage. I suspect Rome and Greece is our actual legacy.
Technology and power first. Compassion afterwards.

 

[Rival]

I will be satisfied with " yes but"

The 'but' here is that witchcraft was literally deemed imaginary in Mediaeval Europe, whether you like that or not; and one could be persecuted for believing in it.

I believe your dislike of Christianity blinds you and you're looking for the worst of it.

 

[Augustus]

But then the Church threw or tried to throw the separation of religion and government out of the window at multiple later points--up to and including ones in the present age--and enabled various crimes and abusive practices as a result.

Which Church? When?

There were the odd power struggle, but in general, the Pope had far less power than we often imagine, even over the Church as things were decentralised due to transport and communication infrastructure. The idea of "the church" is a bit misleading.

In the main Catholic powers, France and Spain, it was more the other way round. the monarchs took increasing control of the Church.

 

[Rival]

Which Church? When?

There were the odd power struggle, but in general, the Pope had far less power than we often imagine, even over the Church as things were decentralised due to transport and communication infrastructure. The idea of "the church" is a bit misleading.

In the main Catholic powers, France and Spain, it was more the other way round. the monarchs took increasing control of the Church.

A good example may actually be England pre-1066 and how devolved it was from Rome; significantly so that William I brought it 'into line' in a way that transformed it.

Another might be Czechia where there were the Hussites, the proto-Protestant sect.

 

[exchemist]

Most societies have not had a separation of religion and government at all. If anything, it is a new thing in medieval Europe because of the separate Roman derivation of the church and German derivation of the government.

Indeed. In fact the church made an issue out of requiring that members of the religious communities* should be held to account by ecclesiastical and not secular law. This led Henry II (Plantagenet), who did a lot of work developing English law, to have a huge fight with the Pope about it, eventually resulting in the unfortunate murder of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Becket in 1170 - for which Henry did extravagant penance.

* I was going to describe them as "criminous clerks" (i.e. clergy who had committed crimes) but, on looking it up, it seems that would be anachronistic, as the term seems not to have been invented until several hundred years later.

A half century or so later, it was bad behaviour by the (religious) members of the newly formed Oxford university that led to a lot of them being chucked out by the city, whereupon they decamped to Cambridge and founded another university there. The traditional "Town and Gown" antagonism seems to go right back, almost to the foundation of the university.

 

[Augustus]

The 'but' here is that witchcraft was literally deemed imaginary in Mediaeval Europe, whether you like that or not; and one could be persecuted for believing in it.

Also the fact that, rather than being something peculiar to Christianity, persecution of practitioners of black magic is near ubiquitous across all ancient cultures, to some extent.

 

[Rival]

Also the fact that, rather than being something peculiar to Christianity, persecution of practitioners of black magic is near ubiquitous across all ancient cultures, to some extent.

Esp. during times of crisis - such as blaming Jewish magic for the plague, deaths etc.

 

[Audie]

Can you give a link?

Pretty near every every site that comes
up on " medieval witches" has the witch thing coming in at the end of the period.

In Elizabethan times, math was suspect
as deviltry, side note wise.

Im not wedded to the idea Id get burned as a witch. I dont see me surviving long,
whatever the proximate cause.

 

[exchemist]

Pretty near every every site that comes
up on " medieval witches" has the witch thing coming in at the end of the period.

In Elizabethan times, math was suspect
as deviltry, side note wise.

Im not wedded to the idea Id get burned as a witch. I dont see me surviving long,
whatever the proximate cause.

Yes, exactly. The end.

So that fits with what @Rival was saying. It was not a feature of the Medieval period as such.

 

[Audie]

Yes, exactly. The end.

So that fits with what @Rival was saying. It was not a feature of the Medieval period as such.

And so-?

 

[Rival]

Pretty near every every site that comes
up on " medieval witches" has the witch thing coming in at the end of the period.

In Elizabethan times, math was suspect
as deviltry, side note wise.

Im not wedded to the idea Id get burned as a witch. I dont see me surviving long,
whatever the proximate cause.

Aside from such ancient civic sources which could be mustered to question the propriety of mathematics, there were also other widespread contemporary concerns over the practice and powers of mathematics. In a period when astronomy and astrology were frequently treated as different branches of the same activity, mathematics could be viewed as part of a larger constellation of occult arts. From this perspective, a continuity existed between geometry, astronomy, judicial astrology, and such vertiginous arts as geomancy and spirit conjuring. When thus allied with techniques of divination, mathematics was open to attack as a black art. Moreover, its cultivation might threaten not just personal salvation but could also serve to subvert reformed religion in general, since many Protestants were quick to align occult practices with the supposed superstition of the Catholic Church.

The Terrain of Mathematics

It seems like just another Protestant bash at Catholics.

 

[Rival]

And so-?

During the Middle Ages, the predominant Christian view of witchcraft was that it was an illusion. People might think they were witches, but they were fooling themselves, or the Devil was fooling them. Most authorities thought that witchcraft could do no serious harm, because it was not real. It took the arguments of theologians, a number of inquisitors manuals, and a series of papal bulls (written letters of judgment and command) to contradict that traditional Christian idea, and identify witchcraft with a dangerous heresy. Ultimately in 1484, Pope Innocent VIII, in his bull Summis desiderantes, let the Inquisition pursue witches.

It was deemed 'illusory' until 1484. This is basically the Early Modern Period, which began in 1500.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The Neanderthal existed 300,000 years with almost no technological advancement. They learn to live with nature.
Within 5000 years of coming across "modern man" they became extinct.

Technical advance means someone is always going to have an advantage over others. The technological advanced of Greece and Rome gave them an advantage in war.
When they lost their advantage, they ceased to be relevant.

Even today, the US tend to push it's ideas onto other countries via its technical advantage. I suspect Rome and Greece is our actual legacy.
Technology and power first. Compassion afterwards.

That doesn't mean it's good though. Egypt, Rome, Greece, we glorify the ancient cultures and put them on a pedestal, but why? The Greeks were terrible hypocrites about that democracy thing. Most of our ancestors were abused, enslaved, and butchered by the Romans and were taught Rome was good while our "barbarian" ancestors where trouble makers (rather than fighting for their freedom and lives). Egypt took the god-king thing very seriously and very literally with the Pharaohs.
We say it's because of what they contributed. I call bull. The Nazis contributed quite a bit to modern Germany and the world (the Autobahn, Volkswagen, animal cruelty laws, anti-smoking campaign, rocket technology that enabled the space exploration), but we don't put them on a pedestal. We don't excuse their abuses. But why not? The vikings were hardly any better and we glorified and romanticized them to absurd and ridiculous ends.
Why do we love some abusive arses but not the rest? Like Genghis Khan. Once he was done raping women under his empire enjoyed equality they wouldn't know again for centuries with many still being more repressed today. And the Ottoman Empire? The contribute A LOT to the modern world but they're just damned Turks.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Which Church? When?

There were the odd power struggle, but in general, the Pope had far less power than we often imagine, even over the Church as things were decentralised due to transport and communication infrastructure. The idea of "the church" is a bit misleading.

In the main Catholic powers, France and Spain, it was more the other way round. the monarchs took increasing control of the Church.

The Catholic Church in general--it has enabled both sectarian violence and child abuse at multiple points in its history. The latter remains a major issue to this day.

I don't think anyone should overlook the hesitation or outright refusal of some popes to address specific problems. As an institution, I'd say the Church, at least in its current state, needs significant reform before it is no longer an enabler of abuse.

 

[Kooky]

Christendom gave us the very idea of secularism, tho, and this was a debate in the Mediaeval age between the Pope/s and the Kings. This is a lot more nuanced than is often given credit.

I'd say the medieval idea of secularism is rather different than our modern one, the latter of which arguably developed as a reaction to the 17th century wars of religion.

 

[Rival]

I'd say the medieval idea of secularism is rather different than our modern one, the latter of which arguably developed as a reaction to the 17th century wars of religion.

Definitely, but without it I doubt we'd have it the way we have now.

 

[Kooky]

That doesn't mean it's good though. Egypt, Rome, Greece, we glorify the ancient cultures and put them on a pedestal, but why? The Greeks were terrible hypocrites about that democracy thing. Most of our ancestors were abused, enslaved, and butchered by the Romans and were taught Rome was good while our "barbarian" ancestors where trouble makers (rather than fighting for their freedom and lives). Egypt took the god-king thing very seriously and very literally with the Pharaohs.
We say it's because of what they contributed. I call bull. The Nazis contributed quite a bit to modern Germany and the world (the Autobahn, Volkswagen, animal cruelty laws, anti-smoking campaign, rocket technology that enabled the space exploration), but we don't put them on a pedestal. We don't excuse their abuses. But why not? The vikings were hardly any better and we glorified and romanticized them to absurd and ridiculous ends.
Why do we love some abusive arses but not the rest? Like Genghis Khan. Once he was done raping women under his empire enjoyed equality they wouldn't know again for centuries with many still being more repressed today. And the Ottoman Empire? The contribute A LOT to the modern world but they're just damned Turks.

This is a long story that goes back all the way to the Italian Renaissance, which started to glorify ancient Rome. As Europeans developed their national and cultural identities throughout the 19th century, they would continue to return to that well again and again. And now that a lot of nationalisms have become unsavory among elites and intellectuals, they are trying to figure out whether that old well still draws enough water to supply a new Pan-European identity - and I'd say the jury is still out on that.

I would argue that this is even more pronounced in America, which not only deliberately modelled its national symbols after Greece and Rome, but also understood itself as continuation of that ancient glory.

 

[Kooky]

Definitely, but without it I doubt we'd have it the way we have now.

Absolutely, but I wouldn't attach a value judgement to that (either positive or negative). History is what it is.