Speak for yourself. Walk it back through history and you find at its' heart it is Xtian heresy and most certainly has a doctrine. It is Plato on rinse-and-repeat.
Speak for yourself. Walk it back through history and you find at its' heart it is Xtian heresy and most certainly has a doctrine. It is Plato on rinse-and-repeat.
My heathenish husband takes it as a given that Christianity, the NT, is Platonist (neo-Platonist?). During my earliest years spent in a Baptist school, I was not exposed to that idea ;-). But it is not a subject we have delved into in 32 years of marriage. I think because - one doesn't particularly enjoy having one's childhood creed, one's little establishing notions challenged or made light of, or undermined.*
I have not heard that it is Christian heresy that is owing to Plato. Interested in any book or essay on that subject.
*The only thing that seemed problematic in the doctrine even to me, while still in childhood, was a touch of antisemitism, not from my family, but rather church or church-school-derived, that caused me (an event prior to my feeling there was troubled water, in my religion, but contributory to it) at six to tell my neighbor pal that her people had killed Jesus; in MY DEFENSE (always paramount to me), she initiated the conversation, by telling me that He was not the messiah, and that was the difference between us, that I believed in something false; neither of us particularly struck in our ruinous attempt to reconcile our faiths, without adult help, by the more signal fact that He was a Jew; I was crying after, both absurdly because I so wanted to be friends with this person I had accused of *deicide*, because she was pretty and a little older and had a cool game room and I'd been offered green chocolate in her kitchen and she was allowed to watch many things on TV unsupervised in that game room, and because she was next door; and also crying because so much did I love Jesus because I had been told He loved me, which was very comforting since I knew myself to be unlovable; but just as soon very ashamed of myself - wanting to query my mother on this paradox but unwilling to admit to and expose my solecism; was neurotic about it for quite some time; I didn't apologize though, never have been able to apologize, nor accept the idea of forgiveness ;-).
Neoplatonism was basically an attempt to combine ("pagan") naturalism (Greco-Roman "rationalism") with "spirituality" (supernaturalism, superstition, religion, metaphysics, etc.).
It was important to medieval philosophers including Ibn al Arabi, the great Andalusian Moor and thus part of the foundation of Sufism and other schools of mysticism (many of which cross-fertilized ideas).
The modern idea that "science" and "religion" are separate is a recent historical thing. See Max Weber on the various "spheres of authority" in human consciousness and how they became distinct in modernity (industrial revolution).
Pure Greco-Roman rationalism was not an ideology that had a material-economic base or a class base in ancient times, so it had to be adapted to religious cultures.
With the Enlightenment and the industrial revolution, that changed as growing literacy, numeracy and scientific-rational thinking expanded along with the growing industrial economy. That was when rational thinking re-emerged and gained importance.
Even though some consider Newton to be the father of modern science, he was a secret alchemist.
The idea of The One, some kind of Transcendent/Divine Unity, was frequently attributed to Zoroastrianism, a proto-monotheism from Persia before Christ.
Note that there were 100s/1000s of years of wars between nomadic cultures and agrarian cultures that probably drove complex agrarian city-states to adopt monotheism (transcendent unity) as a belief system that was in almost complete contrast to the "pagan" ("tribal") worship of various gods/goddesses.
A doctrine of transcendence was presumably a powerful incentive for unifying tribes within a city-state against outside enemies.
Somewhat related to your comment about city-states and monotheism, but providing a more nuanced history, is the book by N D Festul de Coulanges, The Ancient City [1864 in French, 2020 in English]. He discusses an Indo European practice of family god(s) evolving into clan/tribe/ city-state god(s), worshipping the father/patriarchal ancestors and then the king/ priest/ ancestorial leaders; and that this was also the situation for the earlier Greek and Roman cities. Then separate from this "religion" was the development of the set of "physical gods" growing into the conventional pagan collection of semi-human/ super human gods.
But I also understand that the prime/ proto example of agrarian society, pharaonic Egypt, also had a pantheon of around 700 gods.
But it is reasonable to suppose than the Levant Canaanites were not the only people to develop a monotheistic belief system.
Thanks. Yes, that supports what numerous scholars have stated, including Karl Jaspers in his description of the evolution of Axial cultures (which Karen Armstrong revisited some years ago).
I think there is a correct differentiation of earlier agrarian slave dynasties, such as Egypt, from later agrarian city-states. The latter probably trend toward being more "Axial", having developed metacognitive awareness. (?)
The "pagan" world didn't have the religious concept of the renunciation of evil and sin or of spiritual salvation.
The "pagan" world did not think humans could be saved from evil/sin, or that it was necessary to do so.
Platonism asserts that there is a realm of abstraction that is EXTERIOR to the INTERIOR realm of spirituality and aesthetics. I think that maps into objective vs subjective awareness.
The distinction between objective and subjective awareness does seem to lead, weirdly, to both renunciate salvation religion (which defines materialist exteriors as containing evil/sin, spiritual impurity) AND scientific rationalism, which focuses on the "reality" of sense perception of material objects (even when they contradict mythic religion).
Recent advances in evolutionary psychology have reduced the perceived conflict between objective and subjective awareness.
Do you (also) have a reference for those recent evo psych studies? :-)
They sound like they might help me understand the distinction between "faith" and rationality, as I am struggling to comprehend why even very smart people can and do have strong faith, even when faced with, and fully able to comprehend, more "logical" arguments.
[note: I don't understand the apparent ban on "reading lists", but the below is simply a response to a request for more information.]
---
these are just semi-random, you might find better
John Vervaeke and Jordan Hall discuss the Religion of No Religion. Both of them have published a number of articles. Vervaeke is a mainstream academic professor and has lecture series on youtube and/or various podcasts. Hall is a entrepreneur/futurist that has published less formal articles..
Iain McGilchrist is a world class researcher in cognitive science and evolutionary psych, so his books are a super deep dive. He did an interview (series?) on the rebel wisdom uk web site (which is mostly integral theory) that was an excellent summary. His conservation with Jordan Peterson was also interesting, as was his commentary about it later.
I never received the kind of childhood religious exposure that you did, but when I learned about the "give us Barabbas" story (maybe age 8 or so? via social osmosis), I recognized it was a flawed idea to attribute the nominal "deicide" of the 30 or 40 "Jews" in that crowd to the whole Jewish population.
"... nor accept the idea of forgiveness ;-)." I think the Golden Rule version that says "Do unto others as you would have them do onto you" is a lot easier to follow than the one that says "you should love your neighbor as yourself". :-)
At least the first version has a "tit for tat" corollary "Do unto others as they have done unto you ... until they stop".
Speak for yourself. Walk it back through history and you find at its' heart it is Xtian heresy and most certainly has a doctrine. It is Plato on rinse-and-repeat.
It is a doctrine that appeals to people with dysfunctional personality traits.
Some of those people are sociopaths and natural emotional-rhetorical manipulators.
I'm in your choir on that one. :-)
My heathenish husband takes it as a given that Christianity, the NT, is Platonist (neo-Platonist?). During my earliest years spent in a Baptist school, I was not exposed to that idea ;-). But it is not a subject we have delved into in 32 years of marriage. I think because - one doesn't particularly enjoy having one's childhood creed, one's little establishing notions challenged or made light of, or undermined.*
I have not heard that it is Christian heresy that is owing to Plato. Interested in any book or essay on that subject.
*The only thing that seemed problematic in the doctrine even to me, while still in childhood, was a touch of antisemitism, not from my family, but rather church or church-school-derived, that caused me (an event prior to my feeling there was troubled water, in my religion, but contributory to it) at six to tell my neighbor pal that her people had killed Jesus; in MY DEFENSE (always paramount to me), she initiated the conversation, by telling me that He was not the messiah, and that was the difference between us, that I believed in something false; neither of us particularly struck in our ruinous attempt to reconcile our faiths, without adult help, by the more signal fact that He was a Jew; I was crying after, both absurdly because I so wanted to be friends with this person I had accused of *deicide*, because she was pretty and a little older and had a cool game room and I'd been offered green chocolate in her kitchen and she was allowed to watch many things on TV unsupervised in that game room, and because she was next door; and also crying because so much did I love Jesus because I had been told He loved me, which was very comforting since I knew myself to be unlovable; but just as soon very ashamed of myself - wanting to query my mother on this paradox but unwilling to admit to and expose my solecism; was neurotic about it for quite some time; I didn't apologize though, never have been able to apologize, nor accept the idea of forgiveness ;-).
Neoplatonism was basically an attempt to combine ("pagan") naturalism (Greco-Roman "rationalism") with "spirituality" (supernaturalism, superstition, religion, metaphysics, etc.).
It was important to medieval philosophers including Ibn al Arabi, the great Andalusian Moor and thus part of the foundation of Sufism and other schools of mysticism (many of which cross-fertilized ideas).
The modern idea that "science" and "religion" are separate is a recent historical thing. See Max Weber on the various "spheres of authority" in human consciousness and how they became distinct in modernity (industrial revolution).
Pure Greco-Roman rationalism was not an ideology that had a material-economic base or a class base in ancient times, so it had to be adapted to religious cultures.
With the Enlightenment and the industrial revolution, that changed as growing literacy, numeracy and scientific-rational thinking expanded along with the growing industrial economy. That was when rational thinking re-emerged and gained importance.
Even though some consider Newton to be the father of modern science, he was a secret alchemist.
https://sciencehistory.org/stories/magazine/isaac-newton-and-the-american-alchemist/
I shouldn't have said Neo-platonism. Apologies. I didn't mean that at all!
Y'all might enjoy the late Roy Bhaskar's Critical Realism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YGHZPg-19k
The idea of The One, some kind of Transcendent/Divine Unity, was frequently attributed to Zoroastrianism, a proto-monotheism from Persia before Christ.
Note that there were 100s/1000s of years of wars between nomadic cultures and agrarian cultures that probably drove complex agrarian city-states to adopt monotheism (transcendent unity) as a belief system that was in almost complete contrast to the "pagan" ("tribal") worship of various gods/goddesses.
A doctrine of transcendence was presumably a powerful incentive for unifying tribes within a city-state against outside enemies.
Somewhat related to your comment about city-states and monotheism, but providing a more nuanced history, is the book by N D Festul de Coulanges, The Ancient City [1864 in French, 2020 in English]. He discusses an Indo European practice of family god(s) evolving into clan/tribe/ city-state god(s), worshipping the father/patriarchal ancestors and then the king/ priest/ ancestorial leaders; and that this was also the situation for the earlier Greek and Roman cities. Then separate from this "religion" was the development of the set of "physical gods" growing into the conventional pagan collection of semi-human/ super human gods.
But I also understand that the prime/ proto example of agrarian society, pharaonic Egypt, also had a pantheon of around 700 gods.
But it is reasonable to suppose than the Levant Canaanites were not the only people to develop a monotheistic belief system.
Thanks. Yes, that supports what numerous scholars have stated, including Karl Jaspers in his description of the evolution of Axial cultures (which Karen Armstrong revisited some years ago).
I think there is a correct differentiation of earlier agrarian slave dynasties, such as Egypt, from later agrarian city-states. The latter probably trend toward being more "Axial", having developed metacognitive awareness. (?)
Exteriors vs interiors of human consciousness
Forgot to mention previously:
The "pagan" world didn't have the religious concept of the renunciation of evil and sin or of spiritual salvation.
The "pagan" world did not think humans could be saved from evil/sin, or that it was necessary to do so.
Platonism asserts that there is a realm of abstraction that is EXTERIOR to the INTERIOR realm of spirituality and aesthetics. I think that maps into objective vs subjective awareness.
The distinction between objective and subjective awareness does seem to lead, weirdly, to both renunciate salvation religion (which defines materialist exteriors as containing evil/sin, spiritual impurity) AND scientific rationalism, which focuses on the "reality" of sense perception of material objects (even when they contradict mythic religion).
Recent advances in evolutionary psychology have reduced the perceived conflict between objective and subjective awareness.
Do you (also) have a reference for those recent evo psych studies? :-)
They sound like they might help me understand the distinction between "faith" and rationality, as I am struggling to comprehend why even very smart people can and do have strong faith, even when faced with, and fully able to comprehend, more "logical" arguments.
[note: I don't understand the apparent ban on "reading lists", but the below is simply a response to a request for more information.]
---
these are just semi-random, you might find better
John Vervaeke and Jordan Hall discuss the Religion of No Religion. Both of them have published a number of articles. Vervaeke is a mainstream academic professor and has lecture series on youtube and/or various podcasts. Hall is a entrepreneur/futurist that has published less formal articles..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkASzXiy68k
Iain McGilchrist is a world class researcher in cognitive science and evolutionary psych, so his books are a super deep dive. He did an interview (series?) on the rebel wisdom uk web site (which is mostly integral theory) that was an excellent summary. His conservation with Jordan Peterson was also interesting, as was his commentary about it later.
https://channelmcgilchrist.com/the-matter-with-things-iain-mcgilchrist/
also see:
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/maybe-our-culture-is-literally-crazy/
-
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/reenchantment-iain-mcgilchrist-matter-with-things/
Solecism -- learned a new word. Thanks.
I never received the kind of childhood religious exposure that you did, but when I learned about the "give us Barabbas" story (maybe age 8 or so? via social osmosis), I recognized it was a flawed idea to attribute the nominal "deicide" of the 30 or 40 "Jews" in that crowd to the whole Jewish population.
"... nor accept the idea of forgiveness ;-)." I think the Golden Rule version that says "Do unto others as you would have them do onto you" is a lot easier to follow than the one that says "you should love your neighbor as yourself". :-)
At least the first version has a "tit for tat" corollary "Do unto others as they have done unto you ... until they stop".