Random Enlightenment Thoughts

[emptym]

Descartes, Leibniz, Spinoza, Locke and, later, Kant were all big ol’ Christians, were they not.

Spinoza, afaik, was Jewish, at least until he was kicked out.

...Descartes and Voltaire and Locke being wrong about various things are not the main features of enlightenment. Enlightenment was about individual liberty, a shift in culture to value reason and science, separation of church and state etc etc. There's nothing Abrahamic that contributes to that more than the non-Abrahamic religions.

As Fok has mentioned, Western views on freedom come from Jewish and Xn believes that God grants people freedom. Reason was strongly valued by Xy since it's beginnings. The Bible identifies God with truth and human pursuit of truth as a way of becoming divine. The gospel of John identifies Jesus with the logos (Gk for reason) and early theologians wrote that our reason is what makes us in the image of God. In fact, Justin Martyr as early as a generation after the the gospel writers affirmed that to follow human reason is to follow Jesus and thus do God's will.

That changed when Luther and other Protestants tended to oppose reason with faith. Many Xn chose faith against reason. Others chose reason. But many Xns (Catholics, Orthodox, and many Protestants) continued to value both.

Pretty much this.
A bunch of people read Aristotle at a time when the world and Western economies were greatly expanding.

They'd been reading Aristotle long before that.

1. You are confusing "Abrahamic religion" with Western Christianity - the latter of which was dominated by Roman and Greek civilisation and philosophy, most obviously Plato. See true Eastern Christianity (and by that I mean Oriental Christianity, not Eastern Orthodox) as an example of an Abrahamic religion that was largely not dominated by Greek and Roman civilisation (of course there are still influences or whatever. E.G. look at the ancient Christianity in Ethiopia and compare those philosophies.
2. RE: Free will, *objective truth and the other tenets you're attributing as being a cornerstone of the Christian creed - see the above.
3. Writing something from a Christian tradition does not mean that Christianity predicated an idea. Moreover, Kant's ideas were strongly opposite to traditional Christian ontology.
4. I've never heard of Enlightenment Now and have no interest in reading it. It's easy enough to just read the writings of the key figures.

*Moreover, on this last point I want to stress that there was very little actual epistemological advancement during the Enlightenment period.

Finally, I'm not sure what biases you're referring to. My interest is in refuting something that I don't think is true.

By Jesus' time, Israel/Palestine had been colonized by the Gk/Romans for about 350 years. The entire "New Testament" was written in Greek. Even illiterate people would have been exposed to Aristotle's thought. For example, when Jesus used the word "friends"* he was thinking in Aristotelian ways even if he may never have heard the name "Aristotle.

*As in "You are no longer servants but friends" and "There is no greater love than to lay down one's life for one's friends."

So it's really tough to separate Gk/Rn from "Abrahamic."

...There was a decidedly christian reading of aristotelian principles that led to enlightenment philosphy. One of the key examples is overall ignoring virtue ethics and aristotilean ethics but keeping logic as a useful tool for understanding Gods law...

Some certainly did. But Catholic theologians, with Aquinas as the leading example, made Aristotle's virtue ethics a central part of Xn ethics. So much so that today Catholics are probably the main proponents of virtue ethics, particularly those based on Aristotle.

i've noticed folks often invoke 'judeo-christian tradition' often with little or no understanding of actual judaic traditions (or at least how profoundly differently expressed a 'shared' tradition can be) - i figure that most of the time they simply mean 'christian' tradition (for whatever that's worth considering the diversity of christian expression). i would bet that 'abrahamic' gets similarly abused.

I used that term w/ some hesitation, because I know it's contentious for the two or more reasons I think you're getting at, namely the diversity among Judaic traditions and differences among them and between them and Xy, not to mention the varieties of Xy(s). Historically though, it's an advance in Xn circles in that it acknowledges that there is some commonality and that Xy(s) owe(s) a great deal to Judaism(s).

'
Right, I don't disagree with any of this. There was certainly a Christian reading of Aristotle, and they tried to fit things into their Christian worldview...

I'd say Xns also in some ways expanded their their worldview through an encounter with Aristotle. Certainly they made it more complicated, more nuanced, more intelligible/understood. At least that's the Catholic self-understanding of it's debt to Aristotle. Though of course, not all Catholics love Aristotle equally. He (and Plato and other Gk thinkers) are rightly (imo) criticized for elements of sexism, advocacy of slavery, and class distinctions -- as are Enlightenment thinkers, like Locke. No individual or group of thinkers/faithful has been perfect.

On a completely different note, it's hot as balls out, and I'm looking forward to the 60 degree weather when you can wear a leather jacket, but also don't have to, depending on how you feel. Probably will get a lot of use out of my Joe McCoy roughout Type 3 this fall and into early winter.

Come to SF. Cold as f here.

 

[hendrix]

Spinoza, afaik, was Jewish, at least until he was kicked out.

As Fok has mentioned, Western views on freedom come from Jewish and Xn believes that God grants people freedom. Reason was strongly valued by Xy since it's beginnings. The Bible identifies God with truth and human pursuit of truth as a way of becoming divine. The gospel of John identifies Jesus with the logos (Gk for reason) and early theologians wrote that our reason is what makes us in the image of God. In fact, Justin Martyr as early as a generation after the the gospel writers affirmed that to follow human reason is to follow Jesus and thus do God's will.

That changed when Luther and other Protestants tended to oppose reason with faith. Many Xn chose faith against reason. Others chose reason. But many Xns (Catholics, Orthodox, and many Protestants) continued to value both.

They'd been reading Aristotle long before that.


By Jesus' time, Israel/Palestine had been colonized by the Gk/Romans for about 350 years. The entire "New Testament" was written in Greek. Even illiterate people would have been exposed to Aristotle's thought. For example, when Jesus used the word "friends"* he was thinking in Aristotelian ways even if he may never have heard the name "Aristotle.

*As in "You are no longer servants but friends" and "There is no greater love than to lay down one's life for one's friends."

So it's really tough to separate Gk/Rn from "Abrahamic."

1. "Abrahamic" religions means Judaism, Christianity and Islam (as well as all the smaller ones like Druze etc)
2. I agree that Aristotle et al had influence on pre-Christian people and hence informed early Christianity (and of course Islam). That's part of my point! Moreover, this influence intensified in Western Christianity due simply to the fact that Christianity was tied to the Roman Empire - as you yourself made reference to below. But yes, all Christianity and Islam has some influence from Greek and Roman philosophy.
3. Judaism, being the earlier Abrahamic religion, predates Plato's academy, so it IS possible to separate the Abrahamic traditions from those influenced by Aristotle et al. Moreover, Judaism was never tied to a Western civilisation or culture the way that Christianity was.
4. Greek philosophy also had a profound influence on Manichaeism (and Mandaeism, and any other religion arising at that time in the area).
5. I take issue with your unfavourable comparison of Abrahamic tradition vs Manichaesm due to the above points. In other words, I find it particularly hard to reconcile your recognition of Greek influence on Christianity with your reverence only for the Christian valuation of freedom and reason, when clearly there were other religions influenced by those same Greek philosophy (and even earlier Mesopotamian literature) who also valued freedom and reason.
6. I also take issue with your earlier point that the belief in universal goodness and intelligibility was of advantage to a particular culture/society in terms of making scientific or philosophical breakthroughs.
7. Finally, I see no reason why scientific and philosophical breakthroughs couldn't have come about were competing religions of the time (Manichaeism or Mandaesm or other non-Abrahamic religion) to have by chance come to dominate the Western world.

Some certainly did. But Catholic theologians, with Aquinas as the leading example, made Aristotle's virtue ethics a central part of Xn ethics. So much so that today Catholics are probably the main proponents of virtue ethics, particularly those based on Aristotle.


I used that term w/ some hesitation, because I know it's contentious for the two or more reasons I think you're getting at, namely the diversity among Judaic traditions and differences among them and between them and Xy, not to mention the varieties of Xy(s). Historically though, it's an advance in Xn circles in that it acknowledges that there is some commonality and that Xy(s) owe(s) a great deal to Judaism(s).


I'd say Xns also in some ways expanded their their worldview through an encounter with Aristotle. Certainly they made it more complicated, more nuanced, more intelligible/understood. At least that's the Catholic self-understanding of it's debt to Aristotle. Though of course, not all Catholics love Aristotle equally. He (and Plato and other Gk thinkers) are rightly (imo) criticized for elements of sexism, advocacy of slavery, and class distinctions -- as are Enlightenment thinkers, like Locke. No individual or group of thinkers/faithful has been perfect.

Come to SF. Cold as f here.

See above.

 

[Zamb]

The point I am disputing is the idea that Abrahamic religions provided a special mindset that allowed for philosophy and scientific ideas to flourish, more special than other religions in antiquity of Europe and the Middle East (that may have otherwise been influential had they gained the same traction). I dispute this because most of the influence for enlightenment philosophers comes from reading Ancient Greek philosophy (which obviously wasn't Abrahamic in religion), and moreover the particular set of features features of the particular Abrahamic religion we're talking about (Western Christianity) was already profoundly influenced by that same ancient greek philosophy.



I think you are misreading me.

I am disputing a point.

there is evidence, albeit sketchy, that the Greeks were influenced (by some of the ideas of) Ancient Judaism (if you can call it that) as what now know as Judaism did not begin at least until the 2nd temple period, after the Babylonian seize of Israel and the return under the Medes)
There are accounts of Socrates being inspired by, and wanting to be a leader like Moses
there are numerous accounts, but for time, Margaret Barkers book : Temple theology does give some accounts,
a summary of which can be found here

 

[double00]

certainly enlightenment thinkers were exposed to islam as well the koran had been translated by that point but afaik there were no islamic philosophers directly involved.

obv there a certain cross pollination that happens with any cultural exchange which is i guess why we use the term 'western' to speak to the complex brew of tradtions, folkways, tech, mores, etc. i'm not really sure 'abrahamic' can be applied as cleanly to the development of enlightenment thought, so point hendrix imo.

and in practice liberal thought dialogues unevenly with each of these traditions! an interesting test might be to look for liberalism in religious practice, rather than the other way around.

 

[emptym]

@hedrix, re. Manicheanism, you might try living out their worldview and see how compatible it is with science and various contemporary Western ideas: Imagine that all physical things are evil, including your body. Imagine that sex and procreation are evil because they trap good sparks. Imagine that the earth is a giant prison. Imagine that there are evil beings trying to keep you and others trapped in physical things.

 

[LA Guy]

1. "Abrahamic" religions means Judaism, Christianity and Islam (as well as all the smaller ones like Druze etc)
2. I agree that Aristotle et al had influence on pre-Christian people and hence informed early Christianity (and of course Islam). That's part of my point! Moreover, this influence intensified in Western Christianity due simply to the fact that Christianity was tied to the Roman Empire - as you yourself made reference to below. But yes, all Christianity and Islam has some influence from Greek and Roman philosophy.
3. Judaism, being the earlier Abrahamic religion, predates Plato's academy, so it IS possible to separate the Abrahamic traditions from those influenced by Aristotle et al. Moreover, Judaism was never tied to a Western civilisation or culture the way that Christianity was.
4. Greek philosophy also had a profound influence on Manichaeism (and Mandaeism, and any other religion arising at that time in the area).
5. I take issue with your unfavourable comparison of Abrahamic tradition vs Manichaesm due to the above points. In other words, I find it particularly hard to reconcile your recognition of Greek influence on Christianity with your reverence only for the Christian valuation of freedom and reason, when clearly there were other religions influenced by those same Greek philosophy (and even earlier Mesopotamian literature) who also valued freedom and reason.
6. I also take issue with your earlier point that the belief in universal goodness and intelligibility was of advantage to a particular culture/society in terms of making scientific or philosophical breakthroughs.
7. Finally, I see no reason why scientific and philosophical breakthroughs couldn't have come about were competing religions of the time (Manichaeism or Mandaesm or other non-Abrahamic religion) to have by chance come to dominate the Western world.

See above.

Honestly, you just seem to have an issue Christianity and the contributions of the christian worldview to the Enlightenment, which is why I personally decided to disengage.

Your post above takes a lot of issue, but doesn't present any viable alternative viewpoint or narrative.

The only positive thing you've said is that the ancient Greeks were foundational for the Enlightenment, which is undisputable. Everything else, however, is just in the vein of "it could have happened given other circumstances", which is not a particularly rich discussion, and a rather frustrating one unless it's done as a collaborative exercise.

You've been presented with all sorts of evidence and information that points to Christianity having a profound influence on Enlightenment thought and Enlightenment figures, hardly a surprise given that it occurred in the Christian world, not in say, Asia, but seem intent on contradicting the idea at every turn. Frankly, the arguments remind me of the fruitless discussions that I've had with countless climate change deniers, something that I grew tired of in my academic career.

This has, unfortunately, become a CE discussion.

Out of respect for the wishes to those who don't want their posts moved there, I'll move them all to a separate thread here later today when I get through the paperwork and finish my BJJ practice. Until then, let's please all not respond in any way until then. I'll be deleting all posts on the topic between right now and that time. Sorry for all the non-participants who may have become bored with our random Enlightenment thoughts.

Cheers,

Fok.

 

[hendrix]

Well Fok, that is very disappointing from you.

I took issue with an assertion that is an augmentation of the consensus viewpoint to such a degree that it's a fallacy. I responded to this assertion because it is incorrect. I DID present an alternative viewpoint (it should be quite clear).

You've now 3 times questioned my integrity, now claiming that I have a personal bias against Christianity, and acting as if I'm not responding in good faith. It is ironic that you do this rather than actually responding to my alternative viewpoints (which really are not particularly alternative and in fact are quite mainstream).

 

[hendrix]

certainly enlightenment thinkers were exposed to islam as well the koran had been translated by that point but afaik there were no islamic philosophers directly involved.

obv there a certain cross pollination that happens with any cultural exchange which is i guess why we use the term 'western' to speak to the complex brew of tradtions, folkways, tech, mores, etc. i'm not really sure 'abrahamic' can be applied as cleanly to the development of enlightenment thought, so point hendrix imo.

and in practice liberal thought dialogues unevenly with each of these traditions! an interesting test might be to look for liberalism in religious practice, rather than the other way around.

Oh, I have no doubt that Islamic and Judaic and certainly Christian philosophers contributed to the enlightenment - it would be false and ridiculous to dispute this.

That's not my argument. Of course religion and society may develop (and sometimes decay) with the passage of time.

The argument that I'm opposing is analogous to someone saying that Henry Ford's manufacture of cars was attributable to American culture because of their unique valuation of Wheels and Combustion Engines.

@hedrix, re. Manicheanism, you might try living out their worldview and see how compatible it is with science and various contemporary Western ideas: Imagine that all physical things are evil, including your body. Imagine that sex and procreation are evil because they trap good sparks. Imagine that the earth is a giant prison. Imagine that there are evil beings trying to keep you and others trapped in physical things.

There are many worldviews - not restricted to religion - that are incompatible with science and observation. Slowly but surely these worldviews are challenged and changed over time.

I don't think the worldviews you mentioned are outside of the realm of this process. Particularly in the context of the Abrahamic religions of the same time, to which you're comparing them. I don't need to bring up the various viewpoints expressed in the old and new testament that, when challenged by science or philosophy caused great controversy.

 

[LA Guy]

Well Fok, that is very disappointing from you.

I took issue with an assertion that is an augmentation of the consensus viewpoint to such a degree that it's a fallacy. I responded to this assertion because it is incorrect. I DID present an alternative viewpoint (it should be quite clear).

You've now 3 times questioned my integrity, now claiming that I have a personal bias against Christianity, and acting as if I'm not responding in good faith. It is ironic that you do this rather than actually responding to my alternative viewpoints (which really are not particularly alternative and in fact are quite mainstream).

The language you use is difficult to reconcile with a claim to impartiality.

Oh, I have no doubt that Islamic and Judaic and certainly Christian philosophers contributed to the enlightenment - it would be false and ridiculous to dispute this.

That's not my argument. Of course religion and society may develop (and sometimes decay) with the passage of time.

The argument that I'm opposing is analogous to someone saying that Henry Ford's manufacture of cars was attributable to American culture because of their unique valuation of Wheels and Combustion Engines.

There are many worldviews - not restricted to religion - that are incompatible with science and observation. Slowly but surely these worldviews are challenged and changed over time.

I don't think the worldviews you mentioned are outside of the realm of this process. Particularly in the context of the Abrahamic religions of the same time, to which you're comparing them. I don't need to bring up the various viewpoints expressed in the old and new testament that, when challenged by science or philosophy caused great controversy.

This is a faulty analogy. I'd think that a more accurate analogy might be to say that Henry Ford's success owed a lot to American culture placing high value on entrepreneurship and upward mobility in the middle class, a consequence of core beliefs in capitalism, merit, and egalitarianism. Something along those lines.

Anyway, and really, no offense meant, but I feel that I don't have much to add to this conversation that I haven't already said already, and many years of doing this have given me some wisdom as to when to exit an argument.

Hope that you, @emptym, and whoever decides to continue, enjoy, and I'll just read what you guys have to say.