Do I understand correctly that the ancient pre-Christian philosophy was more complex and higher than the later Christian one and gave the world much m...

Do I understand correctly that the ancient pre-Christian philosophy was more complex and higher than the later Christian one and gave the world much more? Why is that?

It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14

Black Rifle Cuck Company, Conservative Humor Shirt $21.68

It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14

  1. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    no, people just detached from that philosophy since it was expanded upon and continued by theologians.

    so this postmodern and meaningless kind of philosophy was born (absurdism, the new way stoicism is sold, etc), to cope.

    you could say all of philosophy went downhill after the greeks, really.
    it's mostly skirting the questions and doing word games based on presuppositions ever since.
    the ones to take the questions and conclusions head on were the Christians.

  2. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Do I understand correctly that the ancient pre-Christian philosophy was more complex and higher than the later Christian one and gave the world much more?
    Yes.

    >Why is that?
    Christianity has a huge basic theology that you have to profess to "be a Christian", and not professing that is punishable by death. To that end, there's little room for genuine innovation in philosophy under a Christian (and for that matter Abrahamic) framework as you're just not allowed to hold certain views. By contrast, in Ancient Greece, you were required to participate to a minimum degree of acceptability in the state cult, which includes public performance of rituals but also private behavior, but that was it. What you did on your own time was your own business. To that end Ancient Greek philosophers were totally free to come up with their own micro-religions that had whatever beliefs they wanted. There was no central enforcement of a massive body of dogma or doctrine, so as long as your participation in the local state cult was up to snuff (according to a dude with a name and an address), you were golden.

    This isn't to say that the Ancient Greeks didn't have a large body of shared theology or a hyper devoted followerbase (they did and these people were glad to kill and die for their beliefs), but rather that the concerns of the Hellenic religion were far more fundamental and far more local. Thousands of people across Europe were put to death for triclavianism (the belief that Jesus was nailed to the cross with three nails as per the Bible instead of four as per the Vatican's pronouncements). Such a degree of granularity at such scale was unheard of in Greece, which lacked a central religious institution like the Vatican. A local cult might get really fricking pissy if you didn't play ball with their beliefs, but they were just that: local. You could just skip town and be free of them. There was nowhere in Christendom in which one could disagree.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >conflating the enormous heresy of the Cathars with triclavianism because they professed that
      >blaming their executions on that instead of the actual things they did
      dishonesty at its finest.

      as for that, the world was increasingly secularized with the enlightenment. why has nothing decent come up?

      the church only asks that you hold the proper basic points aswell, and most criticism comes from not knowing the reasoning behind those points, and claiming they're "limiting" your thought.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >dishonesty at its finest.
        Can I be a Christian and believe that the persons of God are Jesus, Zeus, Mary, and Charlemagne?

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      They literally executed Socrates for shitposting too hard. So much for pagan tolerance

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        No, they told Socrates to quiet down or leave. He chose to kill himself. This is ignoring the fact that before he shitposted in court they were actually willing to let him go.

        >conflating the enormous heresy of the Cathars with triclavianism because they professed that
        >blaming their executions on that instead of the actual things they did
        dishonesty at its finest.

        as for that, the world was increasingly secularized with the enlightenment. why has nothing decent come up?

        the church only asks that you hold the proper basic points aswell, and most criticism comes from not knowing the reasoning behind those points, and claiming they're "limiting" your thought.

        The Cathars weren't the only group to profess triclavianism, anon.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          >This is ignoring the fact that before he shitposted in court they were actually willing to let him go. He chose to kill himself.
          Lol lmao you could apply that same argument to anyone executed by a court

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Plato literally says that the court was totally willing to let Socrates go until he decided to start insulting them. So, yes you could apply that argument to anyone who is offered the choice between exile and suicide after insulting the court that was up until that point willing to let them go.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          >The Cathars weren't the only group to profess triclavianism
          and none of those groups were persecuted for holding that, it was the rest of their beliefs. point stands.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >and none of those groups were persecuted for holding that
            what about the waldensians and albigensians who were explicitly condemnded for triclavianism?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            waldensians were persecuted for not accepting the church's authority by being against its bishops.
            albigensians are just another name for the catharists.

            and you quoted that malformed "criticism" straight from wikipedia.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            So three groups were put to death for disagreeing with the Pope on how many nails went into Jesus at the crucifixion. So, his initial point about Christians splitting hairs is correct, you just adhere to a certain splitting of hairs.

            Frankly you're lucky he brought up triclavianism and not Christology.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >it wasn't for the nails, it was for other heresy
            >see, it was because of the nails!!

            >dishonesty at its finest.
            Can I be a Christian and believe that the persons of God are Jesus, Zeus, Mary, and Charlemagne?

            no.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            So then his point stands. Christianity has no room for disagreement on abstract theological points, and the punishment for doing so is death. The number of nails, the identity of God, all of this is completely off limits to discuss in Christianity, whereas it's freely debated in Hellenism.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Jesus literally called himself the king of the universe (In minecraft, lol) and the Romans found him completely innocent of any wrong-doing. It was the israelites that put him to death for breaching their strict abrahamic desert cult beliefs.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          moreso for calling out the pharisaical add-ons to proper law.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Sort of. The Pharirsees wanted a messiah that was going to conquer their enemies so they could steal the wives and children of their enemies and rape and enslave them
            >Judges 21
            But he was preaching a bunch of stuff about forgiveness and mercy.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Isaiah 53
            yeah, the First Coming is the other part of messianic prophecy. of a call to repentance and a show of mercy.

  3. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    It provided the foundations for christianity itself. It's just part of a general cultural flourishment that ended not long before christianity became relevant. Christianity in turn filled in for the period of downturn and regurgitating the groundwork already laid beforehand.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >regurgitating the groundwork
      [citation needed]

      more on the lines of lapidated it to take off the mistaken pagan (by nature of the philosophers' lack of knowledge of God) imperfections.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >[citation needed]
        How about all christian philosophy until the rediscovery of Aristotle being a spinoff of neoplatonism.

  4. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Come back when you've read Aquinas and the Scholastics, homosexual.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      What did they invent exactly?

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Aquinas
      >For those with faith, no evidence is necessary; for those without it, no evidence will suffice.
      Ah yes, I am enlightened now.

  5. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    No there was a lot that medieval thought and Christianity brought to the table of western civilization. To deny this is to be unread and possibly even illiterate in history.
    And also going off "complexity", the complex web of feudalism around Europe is significantly more complex than what was there before it which is why people still struggle to define it and understand it.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *