What are you currently reading?

[AndyD.]

     I think James is vastly more important in philosophy, where his influence is huge. Russell, for example, started out disparaging him and ended up thinking he was the key to 20th century developments.

The same could be said of Derrida, Levinas. Perhaps even Heidegger, Sartre. Some might even propose Frank Zappa.

[karlhenning]

    I don't know....when the Greeks were free they invented philosophy. No one told then to, or told them they couldn't, at least not until....oh, I don't want to be incomprehensible, so never mind.

You see, insofar as your posts appear comprehensible, they're front-loaded with all your usual prejudices; which limits your posts' value to anyone who takes perfectly dispassionate exeption to your personal bugbears.  You'll be the last person to admit, for instance, that there is significance in your being in a position to explore thought freely, and the fact that you are the product of a culture which has been soaked in Christianity for centuries.

And, interestingly, the culture which has been soaked in Christianity for centuries, quite readily tolerates your contrarianism.  I wonder how that quest is going in certain other parts of the world.

Yes, I wonder.

[drogulus]

     

You see, insofar as your posts appear comprehensible, they're front-loaded with all your usual prejudices; which limits your posts' value to anyone who takes perfectly dispassionate exeption to your personal bugbears.  You'll be the last person to admit, for instance, that there is significance in your being in a position to explore thought freely, and the fact that you are the product of a culture which has been soaked in Christianity for centuries.

And, interestingly, the culture which has been soaked in Christianity for centuries, quite readily tolerates your contrarianism.  I wonder how that quest is going in certain other parts of the world.

Yes, I wonder.

     I gather you don't wonder at all. You wish to defend against the idea that the dictatorship is exposed. It's true I have strong opinions on this subject which I also scrutinize and revise. What do you do with new information which contradicts your position? I'm forced to accommodate it, because I can't say "black is white" just because someone says I must. I'm forced (that is, I force myself) to learn and not just defend beliefs, but see if they are worth defending. So I not only advocate free thought, I use it.

     The value of these 2 books is that they show the historical record of exactly what I'm on about, the process by which one belief becomes "orthodox" and all others become "heretical". If you read the books and find the argument in them persuasive my POV won't look like merely the product of prejudice. Note I say merely. "Judice" can be mistaken for the "pre" kind. And I approached the books prepared to argue with them, as I always do.

[drogulus]

     Christians contributed to the overthrow of the dictatorship, to the extent that it has been overthrown. That's true and important to acknowledge. What does it mean, though, that even Christians now endorse the idea that slavery is wrong, that minority religions ought to be tolerated, that even Jews should be free to be citizens, even though they came to these positions rather late after spending a couple thousand years on the other side?

     Judge, I say, and be prepared to be judged.

[Florestan]

        Are you saying there was no freedom of thought and belief in the Greek and Roman world before it was effectively curtailed?

Please define:

(1) freedom of thought and belief
(2) the Greek and Roman world
(3) effectively curtailing freedom of thought and belief
(4) the exact date when this effective curtailing took place in the Greek and Roman world as per (2)

I expect you really don't know what Freeman is saying

It's true, I don't. But if you can't explain it to me on its own terms, then you don't know  / understand it either.

and your conditioning makes it sound strange ("incomprehensible").

What I call "incomprehensible" are not Freeman's ideas but your interpretation of them. Absent any proof to the contrary, I assume in all earnest that Freeman knows what he's talking about. OTOH, given your very long posting history that made positive proof of your crass ignorance of the historical development of Christianity, I assume --- again in all earnest -- that you have absolutely no idea whatsoever what Christianity is about. I will be more than willing, though, to be proven wrong in your own words.

I'd say "trust me"

Are you making appeal to my faith? 

Or you could read the books and find I fairly represent them, as reviews will also show. What do you think? Give it a try, eh?

That's a more sensible suggestion. Where can I find Freeman's book?

[drogulus]

     Dudes, isn't it the birthday of Sol Invictus or somebody? Constantine was a devotee, and SI had a halo around his head, like the sun shining, so then the emperor got one, too. These things tend to proliferate and then you know what? People forget how they got started! Really!

     Like just as an example take Sunday. Oh, I see a new post.....

[Florestan]

     Dudes, isn't it the birthday of Sol Invictus or somebody? Constantine was a devotee, and SI had a halo around his head, like the sun shining, so then the emperor got one, too. These things tend to proliferate and then you know what? People forget how they got started! Really!

     Like just as an example take Sunday. Oh, I see a new post.....

Of course you see a new post. And it says something to the effect that, if this is your level of knowledge about the historical development of Christianity (a point addressed earlier but worth stressing again and again) then debating it is just a waste of time. There s no more blind a person than he who doesn't want to see.

Gioia e pace sia con voi.   0:)

[drogulus]

It's true, I don't. But if you can't explain it to me on its own terms, then you don't know  / understand it either.
What I call "incomprehensible" are not Freeman's ideas but your interpretation of them. Absent any proof to the contrary, I assume in all earnest that Freeman knows what he's talking about. OTOH, given your very long posting history that made positive proof of your crass ignorance of the historical development of Christianity, I assume --- again in all earnest -- that you have absolutely no idea whatsoever what Christianity is about. I will be more than willing, though, to be proven wrong in your own words.

     No, I'm speaking straightforwardly when I say curtailment of freedom of thought and belief in the Greek and Roman world, by which I mean before 381 people in the empire were free to express opinions about religious and philosophical subjects and that after that date date they were not. The complications in the way of qualifications have taken 2 books worth of elaboration, but my history of posting indicates that I have reliably conveyed the message, though in a funnier and meaner way.

     

     Sol, friend of emperors, worthy of a day of the week. I mean I think so.

[drogulus]

There s no more blind a person than he who doesn't want to see.

     So true! I got the books at the Coop in Harvard Square, which is part of the Barnes & Noble chain. Incidentally, though the books are certainly scholarly in their presentation, they are not ostentatiously academic. They're a friendly read, I think.

[karlhenning]

     Sol, friend of emperors, worthy of a day of the week. I mean I think so.

You don't think so freely as you advertise.  The day is named after the sun in English . . . interestingly, that day of the week in the Latin-derived Romance languages is named after Dominus, the Lord.

Not that mere fact will stand in the way of your prejudices, of course ; )

[drogulus]

      I wasn't commenting about the history of Christianity in particular. In fact if Freeman is right Christians outnumbered Jews and possibly even pagans as victims of the imperial policy. I was talking about the history of everyone in the West.

[drogulus]

You don't think so freely as you advertise.  The day is named after the sun in English . . . interestingly, that day of the week in the Latin-derived Romance languages is named after Dominus, the Lord.

     Lord what? Sorry, you don't get the prize. They were all Lords back in the day. Hey, did you see Rome, the TV series where all those slaves were calling their masters Dominus and Domina?


     EMPERORS GRATIAN, VALENTINIAN AND THEODOSIUS AUGUSTI. EDICT TO THE PEOPLE OF CONSTANTINOPLE.

It is our desire that all the various nations which are subject to our Clemency and Moderation, should continue to profess that religion which was delivered to the Romans by the divine Apostle Peter, as it has been preserved by faithful tradition, and which is now professed by the Pontiff Damasus and by Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic holiness. According to the apostolic teaching and the doctrine of the Gospel, let us believe in the one deity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, in equal majesty and in a holy Trinity. We authorize the followers of this law to assume the title of Catholic Christians; but as for the others, since, in our judgment they are foolish madmen, we decree that they shall be branded with the ignominious name of heretics, and shall not presume to give to their conventicles the name of churches. They will suffer in the first place the chastisement of the divine condemnation and in the second the punishment of our authority which in accordance with the will of Heaven we shall decide to inflict.
GIVEN IN THESSALONICA ON THE THIRD DAY FROM THE CALENDS OF MARCH, DURING THE FIFTH CONSULATE OF GRATIAN AUGUSTUS AND FIRST OF THEODOSIUS AUGUSTUS

     OK, this is getting a little tiresome. Read the books if you want. I'm not an enemy of Christians just because I want to liberate them from their tormentors, who act like they have a right to speak for them. I say no, I speak more truly for Christians than the people who want to burn them over doctrine. Anyone disagree? Please supply details.

     

The same could be said of Derrida, Levinas. Perhaps even Heidegger, Sartre. Some might even propose Frank Zappa.

      I guess you could start the 20th century with various figures other than James, but shouldn't they come at the beginning of the century?

[Florestan]

     No, I'm speaking straightforwardly when I say curtailment of freedom of thought and belief in the Greek and Roman world, by which I mean before 381 people in the empire were free to express opinions about religious and philosophical subjects and that after that date date they were not.

This is a complete falsehood.

I asked you earlier to define "freedom of thought and belief", but you either could not / would not. Anyway, if by it you mean that no Emperor could ever know what this or that Roman thought, since no man can read people's minds, and that in the privacy of their own mind the aforementioned Romans could believe whatever crossed it, then this was a constant state not only of the Roman Empire in its entire history of almost 1500 years, but of each and any state under the sun since the dawn of history till today. But if by it you mean what the modern concept means, namely that any Roman could freely express publicly his thoughts and beliefs without any fear of being reprimanded in one way or another by the authorities, then it never happened in the Roman Empire. The harsh persecution of Christians, which you so kindly acknowledge, suffice to give a big lie to your fantastic claim.

BTW, what's so special about 381 AD? Can you explain me what happened then?

I speak more truly for Christians than the people who want to burn them over doctrine.

Please name one single person who was burned over doctrine in the Roman Empire --- other than Christians during Nero's reign.

[Fëanor]

...
I asked you earlier to define "freedom of thought and belief", but you either could not / would not. Anyway, if by it you mean that no Emperor could ever know what this or that Roman thought, since no man can read people's minds, and that in the privacy of their own mind the aforementioned Romans could believe whatever crossed it, then this was a constant state not only of the Roman Empire in its entire history of almost 1500 years, but of each and any state under the sun since the dawn of history till today. But if by it you mean what the modern concept means, namely that any Roman could freely express publicly his thoughts and beliefs without any fear of being reprimanded in one way or another by the authorities, then it never happened in the Roman Empire. The harsh persecution of Christians, which you so kindly acknowledge, suffice to give a big lie to your fantastic claim.
...

I haven't read Freeman's book, and might or might not do so.  As for the thesis that the people did have freedom of thought before Constantine and did not after his adoption of Christianity as the state religion, I'm not entirely sure.

On the other hand it's pretty clear the Constantine (screwdly) adopted (i.e. coopted) Christianity as the state religion to use it as a unifying factor in the Empire.  Of course he quickly took measures to formulate a single, consistent theology that could be come state-sanction doctrine, and to suppress "heresies", by which I mean Christian concepts that might contradict the emerging official doctrine.  Thus Christianity became a tool of state power.

Duh! This is what the First Council of Nicaea, (C.E. 325), was all about ...

The First Council of Nicaea is commonly regarded to have been the first Ecumenical council of the Christian Church. Most significantly, it resulted in the first uniform Christian doctrine, called the Creed of Nicaea. With the creation of the creed, a precedent was established for subsequent general (ecumenical) councils of Bishops (Synods) to create statements of belief and canons of doctrinal orthodoxy— the intent being to define unity of beliefs for the whole of Christendom.

In 381 AD, Theodosius followed it up with a decree requiring all his subjects to subscribe to a belief in the Trinity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. For a long time Roman citizen could believe anything they liked, worship anyone or anything they liked, only provided that they outwardly acknowledged the god-status of the emperor.

[Florestan]

As for the thesis that the people did have freedom of thought before Constantine and did not after his adoption of Christianity as the state religion, I'm not entirely sure.

As a faithful Orthodox Catholic Christian I might be biased towards St. Constantine. You must not trust me. But I dare you to find any serious, contemporary historian which maintains that "freedom of thought" in its contemporary meaning* was a feature of the Roman Empire before St. Constantine.

*Actually, "freedom of thought" has no other meaning than the contemporary one. 

Besides, which is which, anyway? St. Constantine or 381 AD? 

On the other hand it's pretty clear the Constantine (screwdly) adopted (i.e. coopted) Christianity as the state religion to use it as a unifying factor in the Empire.

Actually, the following are true:

(1) Christianity was the actual religion of the vast majority of Roman citizens across the Empire prior to St. Constantine giving it legal status;

(2) St. Constantine did not make Christianity THE state religion; he merely gave it equal status to all other religions of the Empire and allowed (at least in theory) anyone to freely worship whatever deity they chose. I wonder how many anti-Christian GMG-ers are aware of this simple historical fact?

(3) St. Constantine did nothing more officially than acknowledging a state of affairs --- from a de facto state he moved on to a de jure state.

Of course he quickly took measures to formulate a single, consistent theology that could be come state-sanction doctrine, and to suppress "heresies", by which I mean Christian concepts that might contradict the emerging official doctrine.  Thus Christianity became a tool of state power.

As a faithful Orthodox Catholic Christian I would put it slightly different: the state, i.e. the Roman Empire, acknowledged the one, true and apostolic faith and declared all other as heretical. Furthermore, the Seven Ecumenical Councils officially pronounced a series of anathemas against heretics of all sizes and shapes. And now here comes the big challenge: I dare anyone of the anti-Christian GMG-ers to explain what anathema means --- without having to recourse at Wikipedia. 

Furthermore, if being a tool of the state power is some sort of indictment, then the prevailing politically correct ideology is guilty as charged.

Cases in point:

(a) should anyone maintain that Jews as a whole nation are THE killers of Christ*, and emphatically so, he is guilty of racism and liable to legal prosecution;

(b) should anyone maintain than black people are inferior to white people*, he is guilty of racism and liable to legal prosecution;

(c) should anyone maintain that the Nazi gas chambers were not real*, he is guilty of racism and liable to legal prosecution;

*a view which I do not endorse / support /  maintain at all.

My point, to which I firmly stand, is this: each and every state under the sun, from the earliest days of recorded history until today, has had its state-enforced orthodoxy. There is no difference whatsoever between the Roman Empire under Theodosius and the USA under Barack Obama in this respect: both states prosecuted and punished certain beliefs and thoughts. 

Duh! This is what the First Council of Nicaea, (C.E. 325), was all about ...
For a long time Roman citizen could believe anything they liked, worship anyone or anything they liked, only provided that they outwardly acknowledged the god-status of the emperor.

Now, what kind of freedom is that, pray tell? "You may believe and think whatever you want, as long as you acknowledge me as god?"

What would you think of this modest proposal: "You may believe and think whatever you want as long as you acknowledge the US Constitution, the Pledge of Allegiance and the US Declaration of Independence as the only sources of political wisdom"?

You who condemn Christianity as being a state-supported religion, why do you not condemn also the political correctness as welll?

Should I quote the Gospel in this respect, or should I allow you the humble pleasure of discovering it yourself? 

In 381 AD, Theodosius followed it up with a decree requiring all his subjects to subscribe to a belief in the Trinity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

False.

[Fëanor]

...
You who condemn Christianity as being a state-supported religion, why do you not condemn also the political correctness as welll?

Should I quote the Gospel in this respect, or should I allow you the humble pleasure of discovering it yourself? 
...

Without seeming to justify all instances of "political correctness", I will assert that there is an immense difference between defending basic human rights & equalities, and promoting superstition.

Believe me, I have read the gospels extensively, but feel free to quote whatever you think might support your case.

[Bogey]

[Scarpia]

"A Pale View of Hills."  The book written by Ishiguro just before he wrote "Remains of the Day."  It is a first person narrative by a Japanese woman living in England whose daughter has just committed suicide.  Mostly she reminisces about a woman and daughter she met in Japan just after the second world war.   Parallels between her own story and that of the woman lead to the suspicion that she is actually telling her own story and that the unhappy girl she describes is the daughter who committed suicide.  Another theme is the conflict between those who held prominent positions before the war and those who came afterwards.  The woman's gentle father-in-law is a man who was responsible for education during the imperial period and who feels democracy is dishonorable and that the only shameful thing about Japan's conduct during the war was the fact that it did not prevail.  As in all of the Ishiguro novels I have written, it is the story of people who have difficulty expressing their feelings frankly.

[Florestan]

Without seeming to justify all instances of "political correctness", I will assert that there is an immense difference between defending basic human rights & equalities, and promoting superstition.

Believe me, I have read the gospels extensively, but feel free to quote whatever you think might support your case.

Oh, sorry, now I realize that the way I formulated it implied it was addressed directly to you, when in fact it was intended as a rhetoric address. I apologize.

[jlaurson]

P.G. Wodehouse
Galahad at Blandings
Everyman