> [Krimel]
> I would say the Greek contribution was more along the
> abstract/concrete continuum. They appreciated the contribution of
> mathematical idealization so much that it led them to devalue the
> actual messy world of the concrete.
[Bo]
I trust ZAMM to give a fairly correct summary of the evolution of
what the MOQ calls SOM. For something of great importance
happened around this time, almost all agree on that.
Abstract/concrete is definitely one S/O offshoot, I have no idea
when that term emerged, but I know that subjective/objective is
from Medieval times. None of our S/Os were known to the
Greeks.
[Krimel]
I do not have a lot invested in this whole SOM thing. It strikes me as
overblown and it seems to mean whatever you or anyone else says it means.
The Platonists certainly called on geometric perfection to derive the notion
of an ideal world that was vastly superior to the messy would of bodies and
earth. This messy world later became identified with evil especially in the
Gnostic and neo-Platonist traditions.
> [Krimel]
> Nature sets the range of possibility. Nurture provides that stage.
[Bo]
Excuse me for laughing, but how many times has academy
agreed on this and variations, but each time the quarrel starts
anew over what's the REAL determinant. Exactly as over if mind
is result of matter (brain) or if matter really is mind. This will - can
- never be settled, because the premises are fundamentally
wrong.
[Krimel]
I would especially recommend Michael Shemmer's account of this in The
Borderlands of Science. The answer is that nature provides the slate and
nurture writes on it. There will always be quibbling about which makes the
greater contribution in a particular area under study but there is little
disagreement over the fundamental issue.
> [Bo]
> "Soul" was Greece's contribution to Judaism that
> constituted Christianity so soul/body is another dichotomy.
> [Krimel]
> Greek influence on Judaism at least insofar as it is expressed in the
> Jewish cannon is non-existence. The Jewish scriptures were all written
> prior to Alexander's spreading of Hellenism. The Jews heard the idea
> of a 'soul' from the Egyptians, Babylonians and Assyrians but they did
> not seem to make much of it.
[Bo]
The Greeks did not contribute to Judaism but its encounter with
Judaism resulted in Christendom ... was what I meant to say
(give me a break). But I maintain that the "soul" came from the
Greeks. The Egyptians practiced the embalming just for the sake
of the body - along with a lot of artefacts - were to travel to
beyond, no soul. This characterized all - what to call it -
mythological era. The Vikings also buried kings with his whole
household.
[Krimel]
The Egyptians had a rather sophisticated view of the soul and the afterlife.
I tend to regard the Jews as an offshoot of Egyptian monotheism and frankly
am surprised that the Jews made so little use of the idea. Even into the
modern era Jew have had little use for the concept of "soul" or afterlife.
[Bo]
Plato wasn't the start of SOM, but that even present day
philosophy is footnotes to the Greeks holds true. For a long
time European philosophy was footnotes to Moses (during
Medieval time) but that's another storey.
[Krimel]
In the medieval period philosophy was footnote to Moses? If so the footnotes
were written in Jewish blood. Bo, you really should just leave this alone.
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
