The Philosophers Saved Humanity (Jesus, ritual, tradition, myths, prophet)

[angellous_evangellous]

I've been reading several philosophers (Teles, Plato [Socrates], Xenophon, Cicero, Seneca, Pliny the Younger, Epictetus, and some others) and I am wanting to conclude that it is philosophy that saved the Western world and not Christianity, which in many ways continued an application of Greek philosophy to Hebrew traditions.

At this time, I am concentrating on how the Greek and Roman philosophers challenged people to live according to their human nature (= reason, and sometimes more specifically the reasoning of the philosopher) instead of their animal nature (=passions). I am then using this paradigm to interpret several sections of the New Testament where the writers challenge people to do basically the same thing - to live "spritually" instead of according to "the flesh" or bodily desires.

Because of the philosophers who protested so early to living according to the animal nature, I think that Christian thinkers constructed Jesus as one who lived completely unaffected by this nature of man - no "sin" nature.

Anyway, I've developed a deep appreciation for the philosophers' call for people to live according to reason rather than desires - and their goal in living according to reason was proper fellowship with God and other people. That is, God made man alone able to look up from his food to heaven and to look to other humans to speak to them and have fellowship with them. Otherwise, man can act like a wolf and look only down at his food and never look to God or to others. Now food is just an example - but it is powerful because the ancients' primary meeting place was the dinner table. However, the philosophers applied this principle to everything in life - one can act like an animal if they live by their passions and don't look up from sex, greed, lust for power, etc. Because humans are like God in their ability to "look up," that is the reason we should be just, serve one another, and develop goodness.

Wow.

[Ori]

Well you could argue that Christianity is a philosophy too, but I see what your getting at.

Good post.

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by Orichalcum

Well you could argue that Christianity is a philosophy too, but I see what your getting at.

Good post.

No one can argue that Christianity is a philosophy because that oversimplifies the problem. I have no doubt that Jesus was essentially a Cynic and Paul a Stoic, and other NT writers fall down somewhere in the mix. However, we cannot argue that the Christian faith is the product of reason, especially its theology.

The philosophers concluded that God exists, but could not speak to specific virtues, except to make some generalizations. Once Christianity gets specific, the prophet is myth-making or being revealed truth by God (or lying, of course). The myth-making or prophetic aspect of Christianity draws a huge impassible gulf between philosophy and Christianity.

We can say that Christianity propounds a philosphy because it encourages a way of life, but it is more than philosophy because of its myths.

[angellous_evangellous]

My point, I guess, is that it is difficult to see how Christianity can add to the philosophers' call to ethical and rational living.

[mr.guy]

Any room for Epicurus on your reading list?

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by mr.guy

Any room for Epicurus on your reading list?

No.

The guys that I read trash Epicurus regularly - and from what I understand Epicurus taught the opposite - to live according to what the others call the animal passions of man...

[angellous_evangellous]

For example, Epictetus, Disc. 1.23

Against Epicurus.

EVEN Epicurus perceives that we are by nature social, but having once placed our good in the husk1 he is no longer able to say anything else. For on the other hand lie strongly maintains this, that we ought not to admire nor to accept any thing which is detached from the nature of good; and he is right in maintaining this. How then are we [suspicious],2 if we have no natural affection to our children? Why do you advise the wise man not to bring up children? Why are you afraid that he may thus fall into [p. 70] trouble? For does he fall into trouble on account of the mouse which is nurtured in the house? What does he care if a little mouse in the house makes lamentation to him? But Epicurus knows that if once a child is born, it is no longer in our power not to love it nor care about it. For this reason, Epicurus says, that a man who has any sense also does not engage in political matters; for he knows what a man must do who is engaged in such things; for indeed, if you intend to behave among men as you would among a swarm of flies, what hinders you? But Epicurus, who knows this, ventures to say that we should not bring up children. But a sheep does not desert its own offspring, nor yet a wolf; and shall a man desert his child? What do you mean? that we should be as silly as sheep? but not even do they desert their offspring: or as savage as wolves, but not even do wolves desert their young. Well, who would follow your advice, if he saw his child weeping after falling on the ground? For my part I think that even if your mother and your father had been told by an oracle, that you would say what you have said, they would not have cast you away.