Church before state.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
And those ideas were meaningless until the population was of a type that would follow those concepts. Philosophers have almost always been secularist but their ideas only applied when enough of the other people decided they were right. The spread of Christianity (mainly by women who focused on the "neither east nor west..." type stuff) almost certainly accelerated the spread of democracy. Having a good idea is nice but applying it does so much more.

this is entirely true, but I think one can play the chicken and egg game. Those women who applied the tradition did not exist in a vacuum. I don't know the dates you are talking about, but I sort of assume I would be correct in assuming that they were at least passingly familiar with the theological philosophies of the time, and their ideologies and actions, even if indirectly, would have almost by necessity have been directed by the Aquinas and Paleys of their day.

Locke and other enlightenment thinkers, along with those responsible for the age of reason and scientific revolution, clearly, as philosophers, had direct impacts upon the world, even if their philosophy is shared only by a small percentage of modern thinkers (although, given how ubiquitous the values are these days, that is a terrible argument).

Originally posted by inimalist
this is entirely true, but I think one can play the chicken and egg game. Those women who applied the tradition did not exist in a vacuum. I don't know the dates you are talking about, but I sort of assume I would be correct in assuming that they were at least passingly familiar with the theological philosophies of the time, and their ideologies and actions, even if indirectly, would have almost by necessity have been directed by the Aquinas and Paleys of their day.

The argument is, I believe, that women were relegated to being home-makers and taking care of their children, who they brought up with at least some Christian morals. Because they received little or no education they probably didn't/couldn't know much about contemporary philosophy whereas early Christianity worked underground and specifically targeted the poor, women, etc.

Originally posted by inimalist
Locke and other enlightenment thinkers, along with those responsible for the age of reason and scientific revolution, clearly, as philosophers, had direct impacts upon the world, even if their philosophy is shared only by a small percentage of modern thinkers (although, given how ubiquitous the values are these days, that is a terrible argument).

Either you've completely lost me or we're talking about totally different periods of time.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The argument is, I believe, that women were relegated to being home-makers and taking care of their children, who they brought up with at least some Christian morals. Because they received little or no education they probably didn't/couldn't know much about contemporary philosophy whereas early Christianity worked underground and specifically targeted the poor, women, etc.

that makes a lot of sense, although I would say that the Christianity they were taught couldn't help but be influenced by these people.

Also, even though women were treated as unequal, we know they weren't in fact, and just because they were forced to stay at home should not be a reason to assume their ignorance on spiritual matters. This is of course with nothing to back that sentiment up.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Either you've completely lost me or we're talking about totally different periods of time.

certainly different time periods, unless I'm really dating the women you speak of.

maybe I read too much into your statement, but I wanted to provide at least one example of philosophers driving society in a way that seemed at odds with your statement of society needing to be receptive to the philosophy.

Science continues to change the world, most people in society don't understand the first thing about it, and hold if not anti-scientific, at least pseudo-scientific views.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos

And those ideas were meaningless until the population was of a type that would follow those concepts. Philosophers have almost always been secularist but their ideas only applied when enough of the other people decided they were right. The spread of Christianity (mainly by women who focused on the "neither east nor west..." type stuff) almost certainly accelerated the spread of democracy. Having a good idea is nice but applying it does so much more.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I don't know about you but a society where the greatest minds considered women so inferior that they had sex with boys regardless of their actual orientation doesn't seem too up and up on equality.

Originally posted by inimalist
RocasAtoll:

I agree entirely with your sentiment about secular philosophers existing long before the 20th century. Personally, I feel you can go back to Socrates, Aristotle and Plato to find the origins of secularism, though surely someone more versed than me could draw it back even further.

However, with regard to the Celts. I've seen documentaries that make the same claims as you do, however, unlike the Greeks, I don't know if these so called barbarians would have had a way to export their socially progressive ethics to other places before being destroyed by the Romans.

What I mean is that, looking at the Renaissance, one sees a huge influence of the Greeks and of the Arabs, but (and I'm totally no expert) I've not heard of 18th century Europeans trying to revitalize celtic or Norman social values in this same way. Am I just ignorant here, or might the advancements in social values in these groups be more like the technology of concrete, lost until rediscovered, rather than passed from civilization to civilization?

(But yes, to your main point, I agree 100% that secularism and equality existed long before Christianity. There are ancient philosophers of Greece who can be considered, by modern names, as anarchists and marxists)

Originally posted by inimalist
that makes a lot of sense, although I would say that the Christianity they were taught couldn't help but be influenced by these people.

Quite possibly.

Originally posted by inimalist
Also, even though women were treated as unequal, we know they weren't in fact, and just because they were forced to stay at home should not be a reason to assume their ignorance on spiritual matters. This is of course with nothing to back that sentiment up.

There are only a handful of people in a generation that can build a solid intellectual foundation without being educated.

Originally posted by inimalist
maybe I read too much into your statement, but I wanted to provide at least one example of philosophers driving society in a way that seemed at odds with your statement of society needing to be receptive to the philosophy.

It's hard to find a solid dividing line. Philosophy will shape society but it can't do that unless society is willing to change or is coerced into it. Socrates might have been smart but they forced him to commit suicide anyway.

Originally posted by inimalist
Science continues to change the world, most people in society don't understand the first thing about it, and hold if not anti-scientific, at least pseudo-scientific views.

Indeed, once this message passes through the devil tubes of the internet I'll be off to fire hydrogen atoms at excited palladium!

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
And there are examples of those ideas being put to use. Christianity set back the advancement of these ideals at first. Democratic principles were all but destroyed by Roman Christian thought. The spreading of Christianity did more harm than good at first.

Christianity didn't have enough clout to influence much of anything at first.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
My point of bringing up Greece is Classical Athens is the first and only example practical application of direct democracy to this date.

So it didn't really catch on or spread . . .

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
There are only a handful of people in a generation that can build a solid intellectual foundation without being educated.

It's hard to find a solid dividing line. Philosophy will shape society but it can't do that unless society is willing to change or is coerced into it. Socrates might have been smart but they forced him to commit suicide anyway.

touche

and hence the chicken and egg, for how do people in a society come to accept and be ready for change and new beliefs if not from exposure?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Indeed, once this message passes through the devil tubes of the internet I'll be off to fire hydrogen atoms at excited palladium!

I don't think a self selected group of individuals on an internet debate forum (where I have to say, you guys know your shit, holy ****, i feel dumb half the time I post here) are included in that statement.

However, if you want, I'll make a thread that talks about how there is a higher acceptance of some paranormal beliefs among college graduates than the normal public.

and also:

😆

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Christianity didn't have enough clout to influence much of anything at first.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So it didn't really catch on or spread . . .

I'm not sure about democratic principles specifically, but many of the Greek ideas were transported to the Arab world, and if not adopted, at least housed in their libraries for Europeans to later be influenced by. Greek democratic practices could have been influential in shaping both medieval arab nations and renaissance europe.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
That wasn't what I was talking about. Christian Rome set back democratic and republican.

Fair enough. I thought that Lenoir was talking about the "grass roots" effect of Christianity prior to Rome.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
Considering half of Greece practiced it also, it was successful until war annihilated it.

Bah! 😛

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
How would that be remotely relevant?

Its relevant because he was talking about the benefits to society which were obtained by The Gospels, im merely giving an example of how people have used The Bible to justify evil.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos

I don't suppose you've ever heard of the caste system . . .

Yes I have but I thought the practice would have varied. Not everybody was involved in the democratic process in Greece either. However its seems that democracies existed during The Buddhist period, democratic processes seem to have existed after this but it seems there were not any democracies.

Originally posted by Phantom Zone
Its relevant because he was talking about the benefits to society which were obtained by The Gospels, im merely giving an example of how people have used The Bible to justify evil.

Which still says nothing about the positives.

Originally posted by Phantom Zone
Yes I have but I thought the practice would have varied. Not everybody was involved in the democratic process in Greece either.

Even Greece strained the modern concept of democracy. A subsection of a single gender making decisions for everyone isn't particularly representative.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Which still says nothing about the positives.

......what point did you think I was trying to make by mentioning The Crusaders?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos

Even Greece strained the modern concept of democracy. A subsection of a single gender making decisions for everyone isn't particularly representative.

....yes I know.

Most Germanic and Celtic tribes had a load of separate kings, kind of ruling together over their own groups. If you're saying this was all peaceful and democratic, I think that's overstating that a bit. The larger the groups grew, the greater the competitions for power became. The larger the territory, the more violent conflicts got.
As for democracy and tolerance, mind you, this principles only existed WITHIN their own culture. Germanic tribes had no trouble wiping out Romans or whoever was competing in power with the greatest ease and justification. And when Germanic leaders of larger groups like Alaric or Althauf could be done away with, they would be. There's no democracy there. Maybe WITHIN the tribe, but not outside it's own culture.

And again, saying that Greek was such an equal democracy, is downright wrong. Plato himself argued strongly for maintaining the concept of oligarchy: a select groups of wise men to have a say/vote in the government's proceedings. We see the concept of larger chunks of people having a say in politics long before our Western democracy. But it's not like they had concepts of tolerance to other cultures, or even equality within their own. Someone mentioned India... now that's one cultures where the Caste system shows how there's NO equality at all. Even though there may be a form of democracy in the higher castes, but it is still a form of oligarchy: democracy among the most influencial. Don't make ancient democracy more than it was.

ancient democracy? ehh once again not going there...damn I have to quit drinking..lol

Originally posted by queeq
Most Germanic and Celtic tribes had a load of separate kings, kind of ruling together over their own groups. If you're saying this was all peaceful and democratic, I think that's overstating that a bit. The larger the groups grew, the greater the competitions for power became. The larger the territory, the more violent conflicts got.
As for democracy and tolerance, mind you, this principles only existed WITHIN their own culture. Germanic tribes had no trouble wiping out Romans or whoever was competing in power with the greatest ease and justification. And when Germanic leaders of larger groups like Alaric or Althauf could be done away with, they would be. There's no democracy there. Maybe WITHIN the tribe, but not outside it's own culture.

And again, saying that Greek was such an equal democracy, is downright wrong. Plato himself argued strongly for maintaining the concept of oligarchy: a select groups of wise men to have a say/vote in the government's proceedings. We see the concept of larger chunks of people having a say in politics long before our Western democracy. But it's not like they had concepts of tolerance to other cultures, or even equality within their own. Someone mentioned India... now that's one cultures where the Caste system shows how there's NO equality at all. Even though there may be a form of democracy in the higher castes, but it is still a form of oligarchy: democracy among the most influencial. Don't make ancient democracy more than it was.

Could you please tell me what your point is?

Right... well, read before you post.

It's not my point, I just found the point of a French philosopher interesting that the tolerant democracy in which all people in society are considered equal, and where there's a clear distinction between church and state are derived from the philosophies of New testament gospels. Feredric Lenoir argues that all school should teach christian philosophy (not religion) to better understand what our Western democracy is founded on.

Some posters here believe there's nothing unique about christianity, that it's always been a dictatorial burden and that we've only recently been set free from its' shackles. I found it interesting to see that the things we hold so high seem to be instigated by the very religion some people here despise.

Originally posted by queeq
Right... well, read before you post.

It's not my point, I just found the point of a French philosopher interesting that the tolerant democracy in which all people in society are considered equal, and where there's a clear distinction between church and state are derived from the philosophies of New testament gospels. Feredric Lenoir argues that all school should teach christian philosophy (not religion) to better understand what our Western democracy is founded on.

So you don't agree you are just giving a point of view?

Originally posted by queeq

Some posters here believe there's nothing unique about christianity, that it's always been a dictatorial burden and that we've only recently been set free from its' shackles. I found it interesting to see that the things we hold so high seem to be instigated by the very religion some people here despise.

Well it seems to me that you agree with the French Philospher because in this part of your post you are implying that things that we hold in high esteem (democracy, equal-rights etc....or are you just refering to Chrisanity) was instigated by Christanity.

Are you Christian?

Originally posted by Phantom Zone
Are you Christian?

You don't have to be a Christian to agree with the point...

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
You don't have to be a Christian to agree with the point...

True, but it's still valid to ask, innit?