So in a history class i was in we learned about Greek culture and gods (how the transferred into roman gods, and later into early Christianity) and I think the ancient Greek religion was probably one of the greatest in function and form. Ancient religion in a scientific sense, in a lot if not most cases, exists in order to explain natural phenomenon which are not clearly understood, and since we have perfectly valid reasons for why the natural world behaves in the ways it does, i can't vouch for the emic factors at work here.
Etically however its a beautiful function. Each nation state and aspect of life has its own deities, not entirely unlike saints (most people have heard this analogy I'm sure). Poseidon for instance has power over the ocean, and therefore a lot of oceanic states would try to get in good with him. There was also a lot of competition between nation states that would compete in various ways in order to prove their worth to their deities and themselves.
This means that people had a means of worshiping these deities in ways that benefited the natural world AND the community. People had diverse gods, and existed side by side in an elaborate and relatively sophisticated set of states. furthermore, these deities allowed the existence of friendly competition between geologically separate cities, so that they wouldn't be split apart, basically speaking.
separate regions, if not held together, will fall out of good graces. The glue in ancient greece were deities, and in america there are football teams.
thats right. societal glue that is religiously wholesome, benefits the community, leads to a healthier treatment or at least respect of the environment, doesnt cost millions of dollars, and allows a religious diversity and opposition that can only be found today between mormons, protestants, baptists, and angelicals... only a friendlier version that talks to eachother and visits eachothers temples when visiting cities, rather than constructing their own all over the place.
what do you guys think about this?
If you show me any modern science, most of the time I can prove a root in the so called pseudo sciences which evolved from Egyptian Greek and Roman mythology yet myth has somehow evolved to mean false. So the human psyche is rooted in many languages, Towers of Babel. pyramid schemes filled with falacies of how to attian immortality through human nature alone. To Roman catholics any who deny the power of the Pope are protestants, and athiest prefer a common era as opposed to the year of our Lord that many believe began around the time ancient astrologers, Magi or wisemen sought a prophesized King
Well, the pursuit of mankind seems to always have been to explain whatever had remained unexplained up unto that point. at first we had creation myths, gods, deities, and mythical beasts, gods of fertility and of life, and as understanding grew so did religion in order to better exploit or represent or predict the modern knowledge. those with power in religion may resist the flux of progress, but science brushes away the myth and the legend and replaces it with facts and eventualities supported by copious amounts of checked observations. science doesn't know everything, it can't, thats a big reason religion still exists. creationism buys some time on the time table of earth by conforming more so with the ideals of science, and the religions that cling to scientific values and theories, and that abandon older ways are probably more prone to survive until, as cultural evolution dictates, either science and fulfillment through critical thought, or total annihilation remain.
if you could refine the meaning of your post i might be able to respond more succinctly though.
The meaning is that science and religion should seek truth The Greeks contributed to the modern alphabet but the numeral system is arabic Science is limited to natural observation where as myths have been immortalized in a sense by examples such as mercury being the messenger of gods, the closest planet to the Sun/truth and an element extremely sensitive the temperature.
As far as I know the only thing we trasmit in this cyberspace is text yet we both know that text is not judicial or scientific proof in any modern culture.
Religion is more subjective than an objective system of natural observation
Nothing you have said is untrue, but it also doesnt seem to make a claim.
from what i can tell you are saying that the greeks contributed to our society, but that their society is not as compatible as it once was due to contributions from other societies?
i would say that a re application, or at least a consideration of the greek religious functionality, not necessarily the subjective function, but the objective function, might serve as a healthy critique of modern life. it might help to show the ways that we've advanced, and the ways that we've remained the same in a different light than most consider on a day to day basis.
"Nothing you have said is untrue, but it also doesnt seem to make a claim.' When science makes a claim that leaves any room for doubt the so called authority calls it theory When science makes a claim leaving room for doubt some religious authority may call it heresy. When science makes a claim that costs money some political authority may call it a hoax
I have always admired those who have had passion for their own reality
Science and religion is treated much like any good being bought and sold every day
Can we claim that no good or bad has come from any religion or theory?
Its not my position that any religion is all good or all bad, i think that claiming anything to be an instance of pure extremes like that is nonsensical and absurd, especially in a mass human context.
a theory is the highest form of non-mathematical scientific proof, supported by copious amounts of scientific observations. the technologies, medical advances of civilization, so on and so forth are testaments to the solidity of the title of "theory". all hypothesis are subjected to extreme scrutiny before publication into the form of a theory as well. the fact that scientific truth might be seen as some as threatening to their beliefs and therefore blasphemous is, while unfortunate, just a testament to the weakness of their belief.
the use of "morality" to censor truth and critical thought is just as bad as when politicians dismiss a scientific finding due to the fact that it might cost them money.
this would describe my position on the relativity of views on science, however i would love to hear your opinion on whether or not it might be beneficial to view our society through the lens of a less media controlled society.
"I would love to hear your opinion on whether or not it might be beneficial to view our society through the lens of a less media controlled society."
I believe any media needs to be taken with a grain of salt. If I were a media promoting chemical balance, I could always turn a discussion about Greek gods into a debate on how important chemical balance is to the future of our planet, by headlining "mercury's rising" though that would not scare the extreme right wing who ignore the evidence that there is such a thing as green house effect, and another element known to exist by ancient Greeks, is one cause. Some ancient Greeks had an astounding knowledge of atomic structure and the importance of balance while others left their fate in the hands of the gods. Truth that is discovered is much more valuble than invented truth. Human nature has not changed to the same degree as terminology since Adam blamed Eve for the eating of the forbidden fruit . Though no one witnesses a myth first hand we see it happening over and over as in Milton's Paradise Lost. If I choose to write about casting blame it is not something I have not seen time and time again . To be fair I have subjectively also witnessed Prometheus steal fire from heaven before solar energy was so popular.
PS I agree with any of your claims above, not because of any natural observation, but metaphorically I have never read a positive outcome to censored truth whether it is mythical or mystical.The figurative meaning, i.e. that truth may require moderation by the notional application of 'a grain of salt', didn't enter the language until much later, no doubt influenced by classical scholars' study of Ancient Greek texts like the works of Pliny"
We live inside of media, we do not live with media. living with media implies that it is possible to live without it. human beings are so attached to media, digital and otherwise, that we hardly even notice how intrinsically attached we are to it. virtually every waking hour is spent immersed in media of one form or another.
not just facebook, twitter, myspace, youtube, vemo, blogspot, reddit, and itunes are media, written works are media, and to a degree language is media.
this doesnt mean that you become a copy of all the media you are exposed to, however it does mean that we are governed by media in that it shapes the very way we conceive information.
so while some forms or expressions within media might be "taken with a grain of salt," to view everything you have ever learned from any form of mass communication is basically to question the fabric of reality itself.
an interesting notion that i dont entirely disagree with...
however on the note of "what if the world around us is fake?" i take comfort in that i am just as fake as that which surrounds me (a quote from a movie i no longer recall the title of.)
i wonder if anyone else is going to post on this thread
It seems that the media of Greece seemed to take their poets seriously or else the poets were inspired by medias
Plato named Achilles the handsomest of the heroes assembled against Troy.
Later legends (beginning with a poem by Statius in the 1st century AD) state that Achilles was invulnerable in all of his body except for his heel. As he died because of a small wound on his heel, the term Achilles' heel has come to mean a person's principal weakness.
Now I have the Trojan man add stuck in my mind
"however on the note of "what if the world around us is fake?" i take comfort in that i am just as fake as that which surrounds me (a quote from a movie i no longer recall the title of.)"
When the lawyer finally got my ex brother in law to sign the divorce paper he want to reverse the divorce by a claim he was not in his right mind. I believe it would be difficult to prove which of our minds is the right one and which is left in the wrong reality