Why the Worship of Ancient Greece and Rome?

[Shadow Wolf]

Maybe like Trump, many admire "strong leaders"?

How can anyone possibly mistake that for strength? I know they do, but how? The paper in shoji walls is tons thicker than Trump's skin.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Well I don't know if I want to paint all those people with such a broad brush. I don't know that I'd want somebody 2000 years from now to paint me that way, as a american. There were Romans and romans, I'm sure, just like there are Americans and americans. I'm sure there were powerful warhawks, and peaceful peasants, and everything in-between. I get a pretty cosmopolitan sense of Rome when I do read on it sometimes, brutal incidents aside

Rome was a treacherous, violent, power hungry empire who claimed everything in sight.
No one considers the Jews under Roman rule to be Roman. Nor where the Celts, Egyptians, Germans, or others where Rome spread. Rome was for less than a handful of privileged wankers and it's absolute best was still a warring ****.

Well all I know is that they are interesting to read about, because there is a good hunk of non-Abrahamic written material to look at with them. As well, I'm not even sure that their myths contain much which is better or worse morally than what you get in the bible. I don't think I read anything in there was quite as bad as Deuteronomy 13, for example.

The closest thing we have to primary texts about the Norse religion comes from Christian monks who very likely Christianized the stories and character as they wrote them down.
But the Germanic tribes lacked the death penalty, putting then ahead of any society using the Bible as a guide, as that Biblical society is going to have a very busy headsman with all the stuff Jehovah wants people killed over.

As far as any ancient religion or wisdom tradition goes, I am unattached to any of that, but see that there are little nuggets of ideas here or there, that can endure or be reinterpreted. And those good ideas can come from almost anywhere.

They didn't come from the Vikings. The Romans had some good inventions, but their politics were a cesspool of corruption and abuse.

And those good ideas can come from almost anywhere. Plenty of secular people probably like something about the book of Job.

Probably not as it show's Abraham's god has a seriously nasty gambling problem and has no problems or qualms reducing people to game pawns to be used and abused to get that ego stroke at the end.

 

[Kooky]

It has a weird and loose continuity. As far as "Germany" goes, there was the Holy Roman Empire and then there was the German Confederation in 1815. There was the German Empire for awhile. This was back when Prussia was still a main power player. Amd the German Empire highlighted they were Germany without Austria (because the Confederation included way more than Germany). The Great War happened, Germany was made to give up territory, and the Weimar Republic came to be. Then the Nazis came and fell amd then Germany was split into West and East Germany. And then in 1990 the modern state of Germany came into existence.

It is not loose at all. The Weimar Republic was the direct successor to Imperial Germany, and maintained its official name and most of its offices, minus the Emperor. The Nazis came to power through the Weimar constitution and ruled via emergency decrees of questionable constitutionality. When the Nazis were defeated, the Allies created two rival German states, the FRG and the GDR, both of whom claimed to be the legal successors of both Nazi Germany and the Weimar Republic (the GDR even had to foot Nazi Germany's reparations to the USSR). Then the Federal Republic of Germany annexed the GDR and became the sole internationally recognized German state, the end.

It has more continuity than Poland, but not a solid continuity like England.

As far as I can tell, England does not actually exist as a legal entity. The state in question is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, formerly the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, which came into being by merging the English and Scottish crowns in the Act of Union.

 

[Kooky]

Russia was starting to outpace America during the Cold War. Such as, Russia was way ahead and winning the Space Race until America came from behind by putting people on the moon.

Putting people on the moon was literally the only major achievement NASA managed during the "space race". In all other areas, they had been handily outpaced by the USSR. Of course, that is putting aside the issue that the "space race" was almost solely an exercise in propaganda for either side, and so any notion of "victory" on either side has little bearing on the reality of the situation.

 

[Kooky]

Rome took whatever they wanted because it's what those who lust for power often to. They don't ask, they don't say please, they show up with a legion of armored men, kidnap kids, kill anyone who tries to interfere, and they say this is all mine.

And this is something even the Romans recognized about themselves. "They plunder, they slaughter, and they steal: this they falsely name Empire, and where they make a wasteland, they call it Peace."

 

[metis]

How can anyone possibly mistake that for strength? I know they do, but how? The paper in shoji walls is tons thicker than Trump's skin.

Ya, I hear ya, but may be a carryover from our chimp-like days whereas bluster and machismo were and are catered to. After all, we are "naked apes".

 

[Shadow Wolf]

As far as I can tell, England does not actually exist as a legal entity. The state in question is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, formerly the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, which came into being by merging the English and Scottish crowns in the Act of Union.

England most definitely does exist as a legal entity. It came into existence about 1000 years ago, from the vision of Alfred the Great of the Anglo and Saxons kingdoms coming together to form a unified England, which happened in 927 under Alfred's grandson Aethelstan. Then the United Kingdom was eventually created, ultimately encompassing England, Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. All those countries definitely exist as legal countries, with Ireland gaining independence in modern times amd Scotland pushing for it.

 

[Rival]

England most definitely does exist as a legal entity. It came into existence about 1000 years ago, from the vision of Alfred the Great of the Anglo and Saxons kingdoms coming together to form a unified England, which happened in 927 under Alfred's grandson Aethelstan. Then the United Kingdom was eventually created, ultimately encompassing England, Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. All those countries definitely exist as legal countries, with Ireland gaining independence in modern times amd Scotland pushing for it.

England is a country that is part of the United Kingdom.[6][7][8]

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Ya, I hear ya, but may be a carryover from our chimp-like days whereas bluster and machismo were and are catered to. After all, we are "naked apes".

Our chimp like days, Trump would have gotten his rear handed to him. To the Norse he would have been a loud mouth who deserved whatever came to him. Trump is all talk. It's all he can do. He's weak, out of shape, and has an incredibly thin ego. Even back then that's not good leadership qualities, especially his lack of military experience.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

England is a country that is part of the United Kingdom.[6][7][8]

Well, husband, if you want to take the easy way out I suppose that works.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

And this is something even the Romans recognized about themselves. "They plunder, they slaughter, and they steal: this they falsely name Empire, and where they make a wasteland, they call it Peace."

That doesn't mean the Roman's themselves understood that. Julius Ceasar, for example, didn't share in that sentiment. He thought it necessary to build his empire and bring what he saw as law and order to the world.
Tacitus may have saw that, but it carried on even after Julius was killed, and Boudicca lead a very violent uprising against the Romans in the Briton Isles. And it kept going on until the Roman Empire was just too big to effectively govern.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

That doesn't mean the Roman's themselves understood that. Julius Ceasar, for example, didn't share in that sentiment. He thought it necessary to build his empire and bring what he saw as law and order to the world.

Granted, Caesar may have committed genocide in celtic gaul, and there's an interesting 6 hour podcast on that by dan carlin for example.
And then they went onward to britain.

But the far more interesting tacitus quote in that link, seems to be by far the first one: "Step by step they were led to things which dispose to vice, the lounge, the bath, the elegant banquet. All this in their ignorance they called civilization, when it was but a part of their servitude." What in the world could they mean by that?

And furthermore, maybe the romans themselves didn't understand that. Nor perhaps, do we? But there are a number of things that you can immediately infer there, about the celts: that they resisted comfort culturally, that 'lounge and vice' actually meant 'slavery' to them on some level, and from there, that they probably had more autonomy and individuality, since it seems that those are fostered by some degree of intentional discomfort, no? Trading the harsh weathered hunter-gatherer lifestyle for some kind of 'brave new world.'

In any case, I think our current civilization inherits all of the above, all of the philosophy that came before is mixed together in the now.

Probably not as it show's Abraham's god has a seriously nasty gambling problem and has no problems or qualms reducing people to game pawns to be used and abused to get that ego stroke at the end.

As I said, I feel no compunction not to take information from any of the stories a la carte style. The story of Job seems relatable, because it brings things down to the level of earth, to the level of the suffering of the human body, arguably more than what you get in the gospels. Even subtracting god's role in the story, I think then that people, from any time, can relate to the suffering of Job, the man who lost his fortune and was pushed to the brink of a diseased, homeless death. It's striking to read about that in story so ancient

To the Norse he would have been a loud mouth

I think your catching on. Yes, distributed well throughout the norse canon, there are many places where it talks about the wisdom of remaining quiet when you would talk; of listening or thinking, rather than speaking. That's what I was talking about before, so again: you can find those 'good ideas' with the romans, the greeks, the christians, the norse etc. Just as well, you can find plenty of very bad ideas. But that goes back in large part, to human nature: any human in almost any historical context, can generate many good or bad ideas.

Russia was starting to outpace America during the Cold War. Such as, Russia was way ahead and winning the Space Race until America came from behind by putting people on the moon.

I don't know if you've been following the news on our relations, but this Ukraine business seems to be getting up there with the Cuba missile crisis? Are we out of the cold war? Anyway, that's off topic

 

[Watchmen]

Western Europe was not exactly made of up illiterate barbarians though, which is exactly the myth I'm trying to put to bed.

Ok. I haven’t commented about Western Europe. I’m tipping my hat to the Byzantines and the Ottomans.

 

[Watchmen]

You mean post conquest of Constantinople? (Which was during "The Renaissance" anyway)

They destroyed a fair amount of it, and defaced the Hagia Sofia.

Fair enough, that's what conquerers often do, but wouldn't be holding them up as paragons of virtue.

If you mean the more general "Muslims saved Western intellectual history", it's pretty much a myth.

The Arabic world certainly contributed new advances based on these texts which deserves credit, they 'saved' precisely zero texts though as no texts exist purely from being retranslated back from Arabic to Greek.

They were saved by the Greeks.

Every middle eastern historian I’ve read disagrees with you. Muslims preserved Greek philosophy, translated much of it into Arabic and studied it.

 

[Augustus]

Every middle eastern historian I’ve read disagrees with you. Muslims preserved Greek philosophy, translated much of it into Arabic and studied it.

No they don't, you just misunderstand. It is a popular misconception.

Firstly, generally it was Christians who translated texts on behalf of Muslim patrons.

Secondly, no one doubts they translated and studied and advanced on the texts, but they are not responsible for the sole preservation of any single Gree text.

If Muslims had never translated a single text we would have exactly the same amount of surviving Greek texts as we have today. They were all preserved by other parties in the Greek original.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I think your catching on. Yes, distributed well throughout the norse canon, there are many places where it talks about the wisdom of remaining quiet when you would talk; of listening or thinking, rather than speaking. That's what I was talking about before, and again, you can find those 'good ideas' with the romans, the greeks, the christians, the norse etc. Just as well, you can find plenty of bad ideas. But that goes back in large part, to human nature: any human in almost any historical context, can generate many good or bad ideas

I was thinking more on how they would expect him to back up the size and crassness of his mouth.

I don't know if you've been following the news on our relations, but this Ukraine business seems to be getting up there with the Cuba missile crisis? Are we out of the cold war? Anyway, that's off topic

Yes, no, yes, no. But it is absolutely amazing how the news of recent times read very much like what I've seen and read about the Cuban Missile Crisis. I thought my childhood would be the last I'd see of such things as far as current events go.
But the worship of both is there, with which one you worship largely just depending on which side of the Iron Curtain your parents lived in. Or wherever. One of the most enlightening things I've read on this was debate between Foucault and a Chinese Maoist. The Chinese guy spoke of Mao and Communism much the same way an American would speak of George Washington and Capitalism.

As I said, I feel no compunction not to take information from any of the stories a la carte style. The story of Job seems relatable, because it brings things down to the level of earth, to the level of the suffering of the human body, arguably more than what you get in the gospels. Even subtracting god's role in the story, I think then that people, from any time, can relate to the suffering of Job, the man who lost his fortune and was pushed to the brink of a diseased, homeless death. It's striking to read about that in story so ancient

There isn't much of a story without Yahweh and Satan. And it's not regular suffering. Yahweh told Satan to do it basically to make a point, with new kids somehow supposed to be a way to make it up for having his other kids killed in a tragic accident. It seems more like some story the Spartans would have told their children to justify the heinous cruelty they inflicted upon them.
And speaking of Spartans, why in the hell do people glorify them? Few in history can compare to that level of child abuse, that level of dedication to war, and few have been so extremely conservative that failure to adjust and adopt lead to an unrecoverable decline just under a century after their most famous display of military might. Historically that's basically a blink of an eye. Seems more like something that should have a niche following of those interested (like serial killers or rulers like Vlad Dracul III or Elizabeth Bathory) rather than something other militaries would want to be associated with or young men looking for a tough guy to follow (especially considering the Spartan men where pretty gay).

But the far more interesting tacitus quote in that link, seems to be by far the first one: "Step by step they were led to things which dispose to vice, the lounge, the bath, the elegant banquet. All this in their ignorance they called civilization, when it was but a part of their servitude." What in the world could they mean by that?

That is a very interesting quote. Seems to be an ancient way of saying "rat race."

 

[RestlessSoul]

England is a country that is part of the United Kingdom.[6][7][8]

England is a state of mind. As such, it means different things to different people. To me it is the sum of it's rebels, it's misfits and heretics; from Wat Tyler, Myles Coverdale, William Tyndale, to Ben Tillett and George Orwell. And Milton and Blake and Shelley and Keats - outsiders all.

However, as a historical, political, cultural, geographical and spiritual entity, England is defined by her relationship with her neighbours, especially those with whom she shares an island. We are inseparable from the Welsh and Scots, whatever the resurgence of national sentiment in all three entities may suggest.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

And speaking of Spartans, why in the hell do people glorify them? Few in history can compare to that level of child abuse, that level of dedication to war, and few have been so extremely conservative that failure to adjust and adopt lead to an unrecoverable decline just under a century after their most famous display of military might.

I'm not a good enough thinker to know or explain fully, (or perhaps am not very thinkful at the moment) the motivations of people, but think it useful to point out a polar dichotomy here, between what Tacitus says of the corruption of the celts, and what is said of the spartans, It follows that perhaps neither end is desirable, but that either end would be products of greek and roman culture.

I myself sometimes favor 'sloth' over self betterment. But were I 'spartan' in attitude, ceaselessly exercising body and mind, and I suppose, judging everything around me with a measuring stick, that would be just as hollow as would a life of complete leisure, had I the power to chose either.

 

[Watchmen]

No they don't, you just misunderstand. It is a popular misconception.

Firstly, generally it was Christians who translated texts on behalf of Muslim patrons.

Secondly, no one doubts they translated and studied and advanced on the texts, but they are not responsible for the sole preservation of any single Gree text.

If Muslims had never translated a single text we would have exactly the same amount of surviving Greek texts as we have today. They were all preserved by other parties in the Greek original.

Did I say they were the only ones who preserved Greek texts? No.

What I said is not incorrect.

Maybe you hate Muslims? I don’t know.

 

[Augustus]

Did I say they were the only ones who preserved Greek texts? No.

What I said is not incorrect.

Maybe you hate Muslims? I don’t know.

What an odd comment. Why would noting that their contribution was advancing the knowledge not preserving it be "anti-muslim"?

Anyway what you said was:

And during the so-called “Dark Ages” we were lucky to have the Ottoman Empire to preserve Western thought by NOT destroying Greek and Roman culture, writings, history, art and so on.

Why were we lucky to have Muslims empires to preserve Greek Thought when the Greeks preserved it themselves for near a millennium before Islam even existed? Who do you think the Muslims were getting it from in the first place?