You have conflated ancient Greek poets with ancient Greek philosophers. They are not the same.
No I haven't.
This was the context:
Agreed. Do you agree that a purely analytic abstraction created from such axioms does not reflect reality?
I wasn't quite sure what this meant, but the point was that all moral (and cultural) systems reflect reality, even if the narratives that underpin them are fantastical.
Myths may be untrue, but that doesn't mean they don't reflect reality.
The hubris example was showing an untrue narrative that makes an important point about reality.
To imply that from the beginning, Western Philosophy was anything other than a truth seeking activity would be a fantastical reimagining of philosophy. I would disagree that fictions that underpin current moral attitudes were considered fiction at their creation or after. You and I may recognize them as fiction, but there are many who would argue a real and existent objective morality, especially on this forum.
Why is it fantastical?
Greek philosophy was primarily about ethics: living a good life.
Diogenes lived in a jar, wanked himself off in public, pissed on people who annoyed him and shat in the theatre.
This wan't about "truth" but demonstrating the art of being free.
Again, I would suggest that it is you that possesses an odd idea about what philosophy is. Is it your position that Pythagoras, Plato, Plotinus, Philo, Aquinas, Copernicus, Bacon, Descartes, Pascal, Locke, Kant, Hegel, Mill, Marx, Nietzsche, Durkheim, Russell, Heidegger, Popper, Arendt, Foucault, and Nagel saw their work as creating fictional narratives that despite being fictitious, were to be accepted as true for convenience? I strongly disagree.
In context, I was meaning modern academic Philosophers doing moral philosophy. No one really believes they are creating objective truth any more.
From you list of philosophers, we can't say much that unites them. For example, Nietzsche and Foucault would believe moral systems are fictions.
Nietzsche criticised those (e.g. humanists) who had abandoned their faith, yet still clung to Christian values as meaningful. He believed they lacked the intellectual courage to accept the full meaning of their unbelief.
His ideas of the ubermensch and will to power were a self-conscious creation of myth to replace this.
Of course some people today believe the myths are objectively true (for example religious fundies), but even those of us who can say they are merely convenient fictions still experience them as true.
We can still feel moral indignation or disgust about transgressions of the values underpinned by our culture's fictions.
When our values change we think of our past beliefs as "wrong" not simply different.
This makes them different to many other subjective preferences, like music or food.
The case that I make in regards to this current discussion is that science is the means by which we can understand the how and why of human behavior and to solve perceived problems related to human behavior, where possible. No fictional narrative required.
I think you overstate the potential benefits. Much of what science confirms about human behaviour has been known for millennia.
We have a lot of experience and intergenerational knowledge about human behaviour after all.
Humans are irrational, self-serving but with the potential for altruism,and frequently violent. All individual problems become exponentially worse at scale, and we collectively fail to learn from experience and hubristically think we are smarter and more in control than we actually are.
Also, this field of science is one of the least reliable of all. Possibly more than half of all published findings are false.
Can you think of any major new insights science has made in this field that have brought significant advantages?
And anyway, even if we did have great and profound scientific insights, we still need the fictional (or if you prefer, highly subjective and not objectively true) narratives to underpin culture.
We can create new ones if we like, but they are still fictions.
What I am arguing is that despite the presence of fictional narratives in social systems, no set of fictional narratives have been, nor will be, universally adopted or generate identical behavior in individuals. This is a factual reality. Therefore no particular fiction is necessary or required. All that is required is a method to manage unique individuals in group interactions. I see this as more appropriately addressed through a thorough understanding of the reality of human behavior rather than relying on a fictitious imagining of human behavior developed millennia ago.
No specific fiction is required, but a fiction of some kind is required.
Something approximating the truth is too unpalatable to be the foundation for a healthy society if people actually accepted it and acted ratonally in accordance with it.
Fiction and sentiment underpin civilisation.
Is it your position that we must maintain the Abrahamic fictional narrative of good and evil and “simply accept them as true as they are convenient”? If so, I would be in strong disagreement.
10th time lucky....
I'm not religious, never have been and am not promoting nor protecting nor advocating for any ideology in particular.
Let’s be fair. Human behavior of an individual is complex, group behavior would be exponentially more complex.
I have also stressed periodically on this thread and elsewhere that our understanding of the human CNS and resultant human behavior is limited. We are nowhere near a complete and comprehensive understanding. Given that, is it better to base decisions upon a limited but growing understanding of human behavior, or is it better to base decisions upon a stagnant fiction that was created millennia ago in a time of dramatically less understanding?
I have also stressed that human beings are imperfect and fallible. So, which approach at least attempts to mitigate that fallibility as opposed to treating the fantastical as actual reality? I see holding fictions as reality a fallibility.
I still don't really see the link meaning a better understanding of human behaviour can make a major impact on the subjective narratives underpinning morality and culture.
A more scientific ideology would not necessarily be a more humanistic one.
As to what I think would happen if everyone stopped being religious, I do not see that happening overnight or in a year, etc. As Europe is seen as becoming increasingly less religious and seems to continue as a group of functioning societies no worse than any other society and considered better than many, I foresee no issue with this trend continuing of weening away from religious fiction.
The main advantage of traditional religions is they act as a bulwark against something worse coming along. Attempts to radically remake society on more "rational" grounds, such as the French Revolution and Marxism, didn't exactly end up doing too well.
As Nietzsche noted, the secular west today is still basically culturally Christian without being religiously Christian. It's not really a break form the past, just the latest iteration of a culture that has been revising and updating itself for 2 millennia.
Revisions are not really about a "better understanding of human nature" (they can be a worse understanding), but about adaptations to a changing environment.