Bertrand Russell quote

[Vanellus]

In his History of Western Philosophy, Russell writes about Socrates:

The Platonic Socrates consistently maintains that he knows nothing, and is only wiser than others in knowing that he knows nothing; but he does not think knowledge unobtainable. On the contrary, he thinks the search for knowledge of the utmost importance. He maintains that no man sins wittingly, and therefore only knowledge is needed to make all men perfectly virtuous.

The close connection between virtue and knowledge is characteristic of Socrates and Plato. To some degree, it exists in all Greek thought, as opposed to that of Christianity. In Christian ethics, a pure heart is the essential, and is at least as likely to be found among the ignorant as among the learned. This difference between Greek and Christian ethics has persisted down to the present day.

Do you agree with this dichotomous view of Greek and Christian thought, especially in the light of concepts such as the divine Logos?

Who sees themselves as Greeks in this description and who as Christians?

 

[agua]

In his History of Western Philosophy, Russell writes about Socrates:



Do you agree with this dichotomous view of Greek and Christian thought, especially in the light of concepts such as the divine Logos?

Who sees themselves as Greeks in this description and who as Christians?

I'm not sure what the first question implies, esp. why divine Logos is relevant. Does divine Logos imply humans have an inbuilt moral compass?

The Greek persective that elevates knowledge as the pinnacle fails in areas of moral obligations ie. it can't discren when mercy, love, ignorance, or need effect the most just outcome. It's therefor subject to human ( and more relevantly Satan's ) qualities which as we know cvan be driven by desires, rather than logic or truth.

We have seen people try to blend the Greek and Christian positions and this has caused some very incorrect doctrines over the years, including the doctrine of the immortal soul, which came from Greek gnostisism and Eastern religion ( immortality + reincarnation ).

 

[GrowingSmaller]

In Islam a lot of knowledge is procedural, how to. How to eat, how to sleep, how to pray, how to greet etc.

That is rather than "theoretical knowledge" we focus on in the West, like mechanics or biology.

Procedural knowledge at its inmost leads to a sense sense of intitive knowledge of the divine, of God. This is also a form of tazkir, or purification (the word stemds from the same root as "zakat" or income paid to the poor).

Sam Harris is probably right, ethics (including the religious life) is a form of navigaiton.

I used to focus on academic knowledge, but rack and ruin.

 

[Received]

In his History of Western Philosophy, Russell writes about Socrates:



Do you agree with this dichotomous view of Greek and Christian thought, especially in the light of concepts such as the divine Logos?

Who sees themselves as Greeks in this description and who as Christians?

The Greek telos (at least for Plato and Aristotle) was contemplation. The Christian telos is action, changing your life, being involved. Hence "absolute stillness is death" (Pascal) and "you can only understand life backwards, but it must be lived forwards" (Kierkegaard).

 

[Paradoxum]

Greek I suppose.

The Greek persective that elevates knowledge as the pinnacle fails in areas of moral obligations ie. it can't discren when mercy, love, ignorance, or need effect the most just outcome. It's therefor subject to human ( and more relevantly Satan's ) qualities which as we know cvan be driven by desires, rather than logic or truth.

I say that non-religious ethics care more about mercy, love, and need. It's the religious who would crush, oppress, and enslave others in the name of enforcing their faith.

 

[agua]

I say that non-religious ethics care more about mercy, love, and need. It's the religious who would crush, oppress, and enslave others in the name of enforcing their faith.

This is a large generalisation, and doesn't address the bastardisation of Christianity, by melding it with Greek pphilosophy. The bastardised version of Christianity has fit your premise, at times.

Do you believe the teachings of Jesus fall into your category ?

 

[Crandaddy]

The close connection between virtue and knowledge is characteristic of Socrates and Plato. To some degree, it exists in all Greek thought, as opposed to that of Christianity.

Hmmm... Seems to me a man as intelligent and learned as Russell should have known a little something about the schoolmen. See: Russell's Syndrome.

In Christian ethics, a pure heart is the essential, and is at least as likely to be found among the ignorant as among the learned. This difference between Greek and Christian ethics has persisted down to the present day.

Does being an unlearned illiterate make one a moral monster? Does being a university professor make one a saint? Russell seems to be using “knowledge” in a modern, academic, bookish sort of way that I don't think the Greeks intended. According to Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, goodness is knowable and discernible by reason, and so making correct value judgments is a proper part of sound reasoning. Modern thought seems to have a tendency to want to do away with this, relegating judgments of value to the merely subjective. I have a sneaking suspicion this is why Russell seems compelled to draw a (false) dichotomy between knowledge and purity of heart.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Books contain knowledge, but who wants to be a book?

 

[dumpsterdiver45]

I say that non-religious ethics care more about mercy, love, and need. It's the religious who would crush, oppress, and enslave others in the name of enforcing their faith.

I say that throwing blanket condemnations over groups you happen to disagree with reasonably calls into question the high degree of ethics the 'blanketeer' claims she has. Just saying.

 

[agua]

Books contain knowledge, but who wants to be a book?

I think words aspire to be sentences, and sentences aspire to be books, and books aspire to be volumes, and volumes aspire to be works etc etc

 

[dumpsterdiver45]

Do you agree with this dichotomous view of Greek and Christian thought, especially in the light of concepts such as the divine Logos?

Who sees themselves as Greeks in this description and who as Christians?

I don't see any conflict between Greek and Christian thought, only between true and false elements of the information of thought. What was revealed to the Greeks isn't per se inimical to what was revealed by Christ to the world. Faith is at least in part knowledge-based...blank slates can't have faith.

 

[agua]

I don't see any conflict between Greek and Christian thought, only between true and false elements of the information of thought. What was revealed to the Greeks isn't per se inimical to what was revealed by Christ to the world. Faith is at least in part knowledge-based...blank slates can't have faith.

Greek thinking, or specifically gnosticism, claims that the flesh is wicked and that we will shed it permanently at death. Do you agree with this philosophy ? Also to you agree with the Greek idea of many gods, and that our relationship with the Creator is limited to a demiurge figure, who isn't the highest God ie. Goid is unknowable ?

 

[dumpsterdiver45]

Greek thinking, or specifically gnosticism, claims that the flesh is wicked and that we will shed it permanently at death. Do you agree with this philosophy?

1. It's not a philosophy, it's an idea.
2. Early Greek thinking is not identical to Gnosticism.
3. I didn't mean that literally all Greek ideas are truth... I misstated my thinking in saying I don't see ANY conflict between Greek and Christian thought....rather, I see a lot of truth and harmony between the two so the two are generally--laying aside specific points, but I disagree with specific points in every doctrine--identical in showing God's presence in their thinking. I tend to look these days for connections, and was lazy and inacurate in my wording.

ALL Christian doctrine isn't truth, ALL atheism isn't truth, ALL Greek thinking isn't either. Truth is fragmentally scattered throughout all kinds of thought. I see Greek morality as the forerunner of the Christian understanding of morality, the highest imo to this point in history.

"Also to you agree with the Greek idea of many gods, and that our relationship with the Creator is limited to a demiurge figure, who isn't the highest God ie. Goid is unknowable ?

Possibly to the first (more accurately, God as a multiplicity), no to the second, at least in response to your presentation. God can be and probably is simultaneously Elohim (pl) and one God. Some seeming contradictions are later found to be not.

That Greek thinking doesn't align perfectly with Christianity is not a valid reason to dismiss all or even the majority of their thought on moral issues. A kitten eventually becomes a cat, an acorn becomes an oak tree. Possibly three thousand years from now the earth's "true" believers will look back at Christianity and Greek thought and feel contempt for them both as truth attains ever-higher progression in the evolution of intellectual conception.

 

[Blue Wren]

1. It's not a philosophy, it's an idea.
2. Early Greek thinking is not identical to Gnosticism.
3. I didn't mean that literally all Greek ideas are truth... I misstated my thinking in saying I don't see ANY conflict between Greek and Christian thought....rather, I see a lot of truth and harmony between the two so the two are generally--laying aside specific points, but I disagree with specific points in every doctrine--identical in showing God's presence in their thinking. I tend to look these days for connections, and was lazy and inacurate in my wording.

ALL Christian doctrine isn't truth, ALL atheism isn't truth, ALL Greek thinking isn't either. Truth is fragmentally scattered throughout all kinds of thought. I see Greek morality as the forerunner of the Christian understanding of morality, the highest imo to this point in history.


Possibly to the first (more accurately, God as a multiplicity), no to the second, at least in response to your presentation. God can be and probably is simultaneously Elohim (pl) and one God. Some seeming contradictions are later found to be not.

That Greek thinking doesn't align perfectly with Christianity is not a valid reason to dismiss all or even the majority of their thought on moral issues. A kitten eventually becomes a cat, an acorn becomes an oak tree. Possibly three thousand years from now the earth's "true" believers will look back at Christianity and Greek thought and feel contempt for them both as truth attains ever-higher progression in the evolution of intellectual conception.

 

[agua]

1. It's not a philosophy, it's an idea.
2. Early Greek thinking is not identical to Gnosticism.
3. I didn't mean that literally all Greek ideas are truth... I misstated my thinking in saying I don't see ANY conflict between Greek and Christian thought....rather, I see a lot of truth and harmony between the two so the two are generally--laying aside specific points, but I disagree with specific points in every doctrine--identical in showing God's presence in their thinking. I tend to look these days for connections, and was lazy and inacurate in my wording.

Ok no worries.

ALL Christian doctrine isn't truth, ALL atheism isn't truth, ALL Greek thinking isn't either. Truth is fragmentally scattered throughout all kinds of thought. I see Greek morality as the forerunner of the Christian understanding of morality, the highest imo to this point in history.

Ah ok I see, but disagree in so far as I suggest all Biblical Christian doctrine is truth, and yet agree that some Greek thinking doctrine is truth, as you say. Also I agree that some truth may be found in all belief systems, even Satan's. The Hebrew belief system predates the Greek, which indicates the Greek system likjely borrowed from the Hebrew ( and adapted it ).

Possibly to the first (more accurately, God as a multiplicity), no to the second, at least in response to your presentation. God can be and probably is simultaneously Elohim (pl) and one God. Some seeming contradictions are later found to be not.

Ok .

That Greek thinking doesn't align perfectly with Christianity is not a valid reason to dismiss all or even the majority of their thought on moral issues. A kitten eventually becomes a cat, an acorn becomes an oak tree. Possibly three thousand years from now the earth's "true" believers will look back at Christianity and Greek thought and feel contempt for them both as truth attains ever-higher progression in the evolution of intellectual conception.

Yes this is true and I agree there is some truth ( correct doctrine ) in Greek thinking; however when discovering a coherent doctrine, do you believe there is only one truth, that satisfies all the characteristics of God; or do you believe these characteristics are abitrary ?

 

[Paradoxum]

This is a large generalisation, and doesn't address the bastardisation of Christianity, by melding it with Greek pphilosophy. The bastardised version of Christianity has fit your premise, at times.

Do you believe the teachings of Jesus fall into your category ?

Jesus seems to focus more on helping those in need, and doesn't talk much about some of the worse parts of modern Christianity.

If Jesus believed in political liberty, then he could have been non-oppressive while having conservative personal morals.

I'd wonder if some of Jesus' teachings were repressive though (eg: on gender and sexuality).

 

[Paradoxum]

I say that throwing blanket condemnations over groups you happen to disagree with reasonably calls into question the high degree of ethics the 'blanketeer' claims she has. Just saying.

Blanket condemnation of groups isn't unreasonable. I happen to morally disagree with Nazi's, but it's reasonable to say they are more likely to crush, oppress, and enslave others (than liberals).

I do agree that not all religious people are like that though.

 

[agua]

Jesus seems to focus more on helping those in need, and doesn't talk much about some of the worse parts of modern Christianity.

If Jesus believed in political liberty, then he could have been non-oppressive while having conservative personal morals.

I'd wonder if some of Jesus' teachings were repressive though (eg: on gender and sexuality).

The worst parts of modern christianity likely aren't Biblical, nor from Jesus' teachings. Any person who believes in sexual liberty ( any sexual contact outside of marriage of man/woman ) will not agree with Jesus teachings on this subject.

 

[dumpsterdiver45]

Blanket condemnation of groups isn't unreasonable.

In limited contexts maybe...like discussion between friends over coffee...but this is a theology board where participants generally expect to pursue intelligent discussion and debate. Blanket condemnation in this venue sullies the pursuit of truth and adds nothing intelligent to the conversation.

 

[Received]

I don't see any conflict between Greek and Christian thought, only between true and false elements of the information of thought. What was revealed to the Greeks isn't per se inimical to what was revealed by Christ to the world. Faith is at least in part knowledge-based...blank slates can't have faith.

Yes.

I use William Barrett's metaphor for a storied house. Just because the most important story exists doesn't mean other ones don't constitute the house. Our nature is made up of movement, but this doesn't mean that thinking isn't relevant to this movement, because you need thought for action.