Podcasts about Sextus Empiricus

Der Sommer ist da. Es ist heiss im Friedli-Media-Studio. Max und Adrian schlecken Eis und machen mal etwas lockerer als sonst. In den Sieben SAQ-Sommer Snacks sprechen wir jeweils in rund 15 Minuten ein philosophisches oder psychologisches Phänomen, von dem ihr wahrscheinlich zum ersten Mal hört. Den Auftakt macht der Pyrrhonismus, bzw. die Pyrrhonische Skepsis!

Listen to this episode on Spotify or Apple Podcasts Let's face it the New Testament probably calls Jesus God (or god) a couple of times and so do early Christian authors in the second century. However, no one offers much of an explanation for what they mean by the title. Did early Christians think Jesus was God because he represented Yahweh? Did they think he was God because he shared the same eternal being as the Father? Did they think he was a god because that's just what they would call any immortalized human who lived in heaven? In this presentation I focus on the question from the perspective of Greco-Roman theology. Drawing on the work of David Litwa, Andrew Perriman, Barry Blackburn, and tons of ancient sources I seek to show how Mediterranean converts to Christianity would have perceived Jesus based on their cultural and religious assumptions. This presentation is from the 3rd Unitarian Christian Alliance Conference on October 20, 2023 in Springfield, OH. Here is the original pdf of this paper. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5Z3QbQ7dHc —— Links —— See more scholarly articles by Sean Finnegan Get the transcript of this episode Support Restitutio by donating here Join our Restitutio Facebook Group and follow Sean Finnegan on Twitter @RestitutioSF Leave a voice message via SpeakPipe with questions or comments and we may play them out on the air Intro music: Good Vibes by MBB Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0) Free Download / Stream: Music promoted by Audio Library. Who is Sean Finnegan?  Read his bio here Introduction When early Christian authors called Jesus “god” (or “God”) what did they mean?[1] Modern apologists routinely point to pre-Nicene quotations in order to prove that early Christians always believed in the deity of Christ, by which they mean that he is of the same substance (homoousios) as the Father. However, most historians agree that Christians before the fourth century simply didn't have the cognitive categories available yet to think of Christ in Nicene or Chalcedonian ways. If this consensus is correct, it behooves us to consider other options for defining what early Christian authors meant. The obvious place to go to get an answer to our initial question is the New Testament. However, as is well known, the handful of instances in which authors unambiguously applied god (θεός) to Christ are fraught with textual uncertainty, grammatical ambiguity, and hermeneutical elasticity.[2]  What's more, granting that these contested texts[3] all call Jesus “god” provides little insight into what they might mean by that phrase. Turning to the second century, the earliest handful of texts that say Jesus is god are likewise textually uncertain or terse.[4] We must wait until the second half of the second century and beyond to have more helpful material to examine. We know that in the meanwhile some Christians were saying Jesus was god. What did they mean? One promising approach is to analyze biblical texts that call others gods. We find helpful parallels with the word god (אֱלֹהִים) applied to Moses (Exod 7.1; 4.16), judges (Exod 21.6; 22.8-9), kings (Is 9.6; Ps 45.6), the divine council (Ps 82.1, 6), and angels (Ps 8.6). These are texts in which God imbues his agents with his authority to represent him in some way. This rare though significant way of calling a representative “god,” continues in the NT with Jesus' clever defense to his accusers in John 10.34-36. Lexicons[5] have long recognized this “Hebraistic” usage and recent study tools such as the New English Translation (NET)[6] and the Zondervan Illustrated Bible Background Commentary[7] also note this phenomenon. But, even if this agency perspective is the most natural reading of texts like Heb 1.8, later Christians, apart from one or two exceptions appear to be ignorant of this usage.[8] This interpretation was likely a casualty of the so-called parting of the ways whereby Christianity transitioned from a second-temple-Jewish movement to a Gentile-majority religion. As such, to grasp what early postapostolic Christians believed, we must turn our attention elsewhere. Michael Bird is right when he says, “Christian discourses about deity belong incontrovertibly in the Greco-Roman context because it provided the cultural encyclopedia that, in diverse ways, shaped the early church's Christological conceptuality and vocabulary.”[9] Learning Greco-Roman theology is not only important because that was the context in which early Christians wrote, but also because from the late first century onward, most of our Christian authors converted from that worldview. Rather than talking about the Hellenization of Christianity, we should begin by asking how Hellenists experienced Christianization. In other words, Greco-Roman beliefs about the gods were the default lens through which converts first saw Christ. In order to explore how Greco-Roman theology shaped what people believed about Jesus as god, we do well to begin by asking how they defined a god. Andrew Perriman offers a helpful starting point. “The gods,” he writes, “are mostly understood as corporeal beings, blessed with immortality, larger, more beautiful, and more powerful than their mortal analogues.”[10] Furthermore, there were lots of them! The sublunar realm was, in the words of Paula Fredriksen, “a god-congested place.”[11] What's more, “[S]harp lines and clearly demarcated boundaries between divinity and humanity were lacking."[12] Gods could appear as people and people could ascend to become gods. Comprehending what Greco-Roman people believed about gods coming down and humans going up will occupy the first part of this paper. Only once we've adjusted our thinking to their culture, will we walk through key moments in the life of Jesus of Nazareth to hear the story with ancient Mediterranean ears. Lastly, we'll consider the evidence from sources that think of Jesus in Greco-Roman categories. Bringing this all together we'll enumerate the primary ways to interpret the phrase “Jesus is god” available to Christians in the pre-Nicene period. Gods Coming Down and Humans Going Up The idea that a god would visit someone is not as unusual as it first sounds. We find plenty of examples of Yahweh himself or non-human representatives visiting people in the Hebrew Bible.[13] One psalmist even referred to angels or “heavenly beings” (ESV) as אֱלֹהִים (gods).[14] The Greco-Roman world too told stories about divine entities coming down to interact with people. Euripides tells about the time Zeus forced the god Apollo to become a human servant in the house of Admetus, performing menial labor as punishment for killing the Cyclopes (Alcestis 1). Baucis and Philemon offered hospitality to Jupiter and Mercury when they appeared in human form (Ovid, Metamorphoses 8.26-34). In Homer's Odyssey onlookers warn Antinous for flinging a stool against a stranger since “the gods do take on the look of strangers dropping in from abroad”[15] (17.534-9). Because they believed the boundary between the divine realm and the Earth was so permeable, Mediterranean people were always on guard for an encounter with a god in disguise. In addition to gods coming down, in special circumstances, humans could ascend and become gods too. Diodorus of Sicily demarcated two types of gods: those who are “eternal and imperishable, such as the sun and the moon” and “the other gods…terrestrial beings who attained to immortal honour”[16] (The Historical Library of Diodorus the Sicilian 6.1). By some accounts, even the Olympian gods, including Kronos and Uranus were once mortal men.[17] Among humans who could become divine, we find several distinguishable categories, including heroes, miracle workers, and rulers. We'll look at each briefly before considering how the story of Jesus would resonate with those holding a Greco-Roman worldview. Deified Heroes Cornutus the Stoic said, “[T]he ancients called heroes those who were so strong in body and soul that they seemed to be part of a divine race.” (Greek Theology 31)[18] At first this statement appears to be a mere simile, but he goes on to say of Heracles (Hercules), the Greek hero par excellence, “his services had earned him apotheosis” (ibid.). Apotheosis (or deification) is the process by which a human ascends into the divine realm. Beyond Heracles and his feats of strength, other exceptional individuals became deified for various reasons. Amphiarus was a seer who died in the battle at Thebes. After opening a chasm in the earth to swallow him in battle, “Zeus made him immortal”[19] (Apollodorus, Library of Greek Mythology 3.6). Pausanias says the custom of the inhabitants of Oropos was to drop coins into Amphiarus' spring “because this is where they say Amphiarus rose up as a god”[20] (Guide to Greece 1.34). Likewise, Strabo speaks about a shrine for Calchas, a deceased diviner from the Trojan war (Homer, Illiad 1.79-84), “where those consulting the oracle sacrifice a black ram to the dead and sleep in its hide”[21] (Strabo, Geography 6.3.9). Though the great majority of the dead were locked away in the lower world of Hades, leading a shadowy pitiful existence, the exceptional few could visit or speak from beyond the grave. Lastly, there was Zoroaster the Persian prophet who, according to Dio Chrysostom, was enveloped by fire while he meditated upon a mountain. He was unharmed and gave advice on how to properly make offerings to the gods (Dio Chrysostom, Discourses 36.40). The Psuedo-Clementine Homilies include a story about a lightning bolt striking and killing Zoroaster. After his devotees buried his body, they built a temple on the site, thinking that “his soul had been sent for by lightning” and they “worshipped him as a god”[22] (Homily 9.5.2). Thus, a hero could have extraordinary strength, foresight, or closeness to the gods resulting in apotheosis and ongoing worship and communication. Deified Miracle Workers Beyond heroes, Greco-Roman people loved to tell stories about deified miracle workers. Twice Orpheus rescued a ship from a storm by praying to the gods (Diodorus of Sicily 4.43.1f; 48.5f). After his death, surviving inscriptions indicate that he both received worship and was regarded as a god in several cities.[23] Epimenides “fell asleep in a cave for fifty-seven years”[24] (Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers 1.109). He also predicted a ten-year period of reprieve from Persian attack in Athens (Plato Laws 1.642D-E). Plato called him a divine man (θεῖος ἀνήρ) (ibid.) and Diogenes talked of Cretans sacrificing to him as a god (Diogenes, Lives 1.114). Iamblichus said Pythagoras was the son of Apollo and a mortal woman (Life of Pythagoras 2). Nonetheless, the soul of Pythagoras enjoyed multiple lives, having originally been “sent to mankind from the empire of Apollo”[25] (Life 2). Diogenes and Lucian enumerate the lives the pre-existent Pythagoras led, including Aethalides, Euphorbus, Hermotimus, and Pyrrhus (Diogenes, Life of Pythagoras 4; Lucian, The Cock 16-20). Hermes had granted Pythagoras the gift of “perpetual transmigration of his soul”[26] so he could remember his lives while living or dead (Diogenes, Life 4). Ancient sources are replete with Pythagorean miracle stories.[27] Porphyry mentions several, including taming a bear, persuading an ox to stop eating beans, and accurately predicting a catch of fish (Life of Pythagoras 23-25). Porphyry said Pythagoras accurately predicted earthquakes and “chased away a pestilence, suppressed violent winds and hail, [and] calmed storms on rivers and on seas” (Life 29).[28] Such miracles, argued the Pythagoreans made Pythagoras “a being superior to man, and not to a mere man” (Iamblichus, Life 28).[29] Iamblichus lays out the views of Pythagoras' followers, including that he was a god, a philanthropic daemon, the Pythian, the Hyperborean Apollo, a Paeon, a daemon inhabiting the moon, or an Olympian god (Life 6). Another pre-Socratic philosopher was Empedocles who studied under Pythagoras. To him sources attribute several miracles, including stopping a damaging wind, restoring the wind, bringing dry weather, causing it to rain, and even bringing someone back from Hades (Diogenes, Lives 8.59).[30] Diogenes records an incident in which Empedocles put a woman into a trance for thirty days before sending her away alive (8.61). He also includes a poem in which Empedocles says, “I am a deathless god, no longer mortal, I go among you honored by all, as is right”[31] (8.62). Asclepius was a son of the god Apollo and a human woman (Cornutus, Greek Theology 33). He was known for healing people from diseases and injuries (Pindar, Pythian 3.47-50). “[H]e invented any medicine he wished for the sick, and raised up the dead”[32] (Pausanias, Guide to Greece 2.26.4). However, as Diodorus relates, Hades complained to Zeus on account of Asclepius' diminishing his realm, which resulted in Zeus zapping Asclepius with a thunderbolt, killing him (4.71.2-3). Nevertheless, Asclepius later ascended into heaven to become a god (Hyginus, Fables 224; Cicero, Nature of the Gods 2.62).[33] Apollonius of Tyana was a famous first century miracle worker. According to Philostratus' account, the locals of Tyana regard Apollonius to be the son of Zeus (Life 1.6). Apollonius predicted many events, interpreted dreams, and knew private facts about people. He rebuked and ridiculed a demon, causing it to flee, shrieking as it went (Life 2.4).[34] He even once stopped a funeral procession and raised the deceased to life (Life 4.45). What's more he knew every human language (Life 1.19) and could understand what sparrows chirped to each other (Life 4.3). Once he instantaneously transported himself from Smyrna to Ephesus (Life 4.10). He claimed knowledge of his previous incarnation as the captain of an Egyptian ship (Life 3.23) and, in the end, Apollonius entered the temple of Athena and vanished, ascending from earth into heaven to the sound of a choir singing (Life 8.30). We have plenty of literary evidence that contemporaries and those who lived later regarded him as a divine man (Letters 48.3)[35] or godlike (ἰσόθεος) (Letters 44.1) or even just a god (θεός) (Life 5.24). Deified Rulers Our last category of deified humans to consider before seeing how this all relates to Jesus is rulers. Egyptians, as indicated from the hieroglyphs left in the pyramids, believed their deceased kings to enjoy afterlives as gods. They could become star gods or even hunt and consume other gods to absorb their powers.[36] The famous Macedonian conqueror, Alexander the Great, carried himself as a god towards the Persians though Plutarch opines, “[he] was not at all vain or deluded but rather used belief in his divinity to enslave others”[37] (Life of Alexander 28). This worship continued after his death, especially in Alexandria where Ptolemy built a tomb and established a priesthood to conduct religious honors to the deified ruler. Even the emperor Trajan offered a sacrifice to the spirit of Alexander (Cassius Dio, Roman History 68.30). Another interesting example is Antiochus I of Comagene who called himself “Antiochus the just [and] manifest god, friend of the Romans [and] friend of the Greeks.”[38] His tomb boasted four colossal figures seated on thrones: Zeus, Heracles, Apollo, and himself. The message was clear: Antiochus I wanted his subjects to recognize his place among the gods after death. Of course, the most relevant rulers for the Christian era were the Roman emperors. The first official Roman emperor Augustus deified his predecessor, Julius Caesar, celebrating his apotheosis with games (Suetonius, Life of Julius Caesar 88). Only five years after Augustus died, eastern inhabitants of the Roman Empire at Priene happily declared “the birthday of the god Augustus” (ἡ γενέθλιος ἡμέρα τοῦ θεοῦ)[39] to be the start of their provincial year. By the time of Tacitus, a century after Augustus died, the wealthy in Rome had statues of the first emperor in their gardens for worship (Annals 1.73). The Roman historian Appian explained that the Romans regularly deify emperors at death “provided he has not been a despot or a disgrace”[40] (The Civil Wars 2.148).  In other words, deification was the default setting for deceased emperors. Pliny the Younger lays it on pretty thick when he describes the process. He says Nero deified Claudius to expose him; Titus deified Vespasian and Domitian so he could be the son and brother of gods. However, Trajan deified Nerva because he genuinely believed him to be more than a human (Panegyric 11). In our little survey, we've seen three main categories of deified humans: heroes, miracle workers, and good rulers. These “conceptions of deity,” writes David Litwa, “were part of the “preunderstanding” of Hellenistic culture.”[41] He continues: If actual cases of deification were rare, traditions of deification were not. They were the stuff of heroic epic, lyric song, ancient mythology, cultic hymns, Hellenistic novels, and popular plays all over the first-century Mediterranean world. Such discourses were part of mainstream, urban culture to which most early Christians belonged. If Christians were socialized in predominantly Greco-Roman environments, it is no surprise that they employed and adapted common traits of deities and deified men to exalt their lord to divine status.[42] Now that we've attuned our thinking to Mediterranean sensibilities about gods coming down in the shape of humans and humans experiencing apotheosis to permanently dwell as gods in the divine realm, our ears are attuned to hear the story of Jesus with Greco-Roman ears. Hearing the Story of Jesus with Greco-Roman Ears How would second or third century inhabitants of the Roman empire have categorized Jesus? Taking my cue from Litwa's treatment in Iesus Deus, I'll briefly work through Jesus' conception, transfiguration, miracles, resurrection, and ascension. Miraculous Conception Although set within the context of Jewish messianism, Christ's miraculous birth would have resonated differently with Greco-Roman people. Stories of gods coming down and having intercourse with women are common in classical literature. That these stories made sense of why certain individuals were so exceptional is obvious. For example, Origen related a story about Apollo impregnating Amphictione who then gave birth to Plato (Against Celsus 1.37). Though Mary's conception did not come about through intercourse with a divine visitor, the fact that Jesus had no human father would call to mind divine sonship like Pythagoras or Asclepius. Celsus pointed out that the ancients “attributed a divine origin to Perseus, and Amphion, and Aeacus, and Minos” (Origen, Against Celsus 1.67). Philostratus records a story of the Egyptian god Proteus saying to Apollonius' mother that she would give birth to himself (Life of Apollonius of Tyana 1.4). Since people were primed to connect miraculous origins with divinity, typical hearers of the birth narratives of Matthew or Luke would likely think that this baby might be either be a descended god or a man destined to ascend to become a god. Miracles and Healing As we've seen, Jesus' miracles would not have sounded unbelievable or even unprecedent to Mediterranean people. Like Jesus, Orpheus and Empedocles calmed storms, rescuing ships. Though Jesus provided miraculous guidance on how to catch fish, Pythagoras foretold the number of fish in a great catch. After the fishermen painstakingly counted them all, they were astounded that when they threw them back in, they were still alive (Porphyry, Life 23-25). Jesus' ability to foretell the future, know people's thoughts, and cast out demons all find parallels in Apollonius of Tyana. As for resurrecting the dead, we have the stories of Empedocles, Asclepius, and Apollonius. The last of which even stopped a funeral procession to raise the dead, calling to mind Jesus' deeds in Luke 7.11-17. When Lycaonians witnessed Paul's healing of a man crippled from birth, they cried out, “The gods have come down to us in the likeness of men” (Acts 14.11). Another time when no harm befell Paul after a poisonous snake bit him on Malta, Gentile onlookers concluded “he was a god” (Acts 28.6). Barry Blackburn makes the following observation: [I]n view of the tendency, most clearly seen in the Epimenidean, Pythagorean, and Apollonian traditions, to correlate impressive miracle-working with divine status, one may justifiably conclude that the evangelical miracle traditions would have helped numerous gentile Christians to arrive at and maintain belief in Jesus' divine status.[43] Transfiguration Ancient Mediterranean inhabitants believed that the gods occasionally came down disguised as people. Only when gods revealed their inner brilliant natures could people know that they weren't mere humans. After his ship grounded on the sands of Krisa, Apollo leaped from the ship emitting flashes of fire “like a star in the middle of day…his radiance shot to heaven”[44] (Homeric Hymns, Hymn to Apollo 440). Likewise, Aphrodite appeared in shining garments, brighter than a fire and shimmering like the moon (Hymn to Aphrodite 85-89). When Demeter appeared to Metaneira, she initially looked like an old woman, but she transformed herself before her. “Casting old age away…a delightful perfume spread…a radiance shone out far from the goddess' immortal flesh…and the solid-made house was filled with a light like the lightning-flash”[45] (Hymn to Demeter 275-280). Homer wrote about Odysseus' transformation at the golden wand of Athena in which his clothes became clean, he became taller, and his skin looked younger. His son, Telemachus cried out, “Surely you are some god who rules the vaulting skies”[46] (Odyssey 16.206). Each time the observers conclude the transfigured person is a god. Resurrection & Ascension In defending the resurrection of Jesus, Theophilus of Antioch said, “[Y]ou believe that Hercules, who burned himself, lives; and that Aesculapius [Asclepius], who was struck with lightning, was raised”[47] (Autolycus 1.13). Although Hercules' physical body burnt, his transformed pneumatic body continued on as the poet Callimachus said, “under a Phrygian oak his limbs had been deified”[48] (Callimachus, Hymn to Artemis 159). Others thought Hercules ascended to heaven in his burnt body, which Asclepius subsequently healed (Lucian, Dialogue of the Gods 13). After his ascent, Diodorus relates how the people first sacrificed to him “as to a hero” then in Athens they began to honor him “with sacrifices like as to a god”[49] (The Historical Library 4.39). As for Asclepius, his ascension resulted in his deification as Cyprian said, “Aesculapius is struck by lightning, that he may rise into a god”[50] (On the Vanity of Idols 2). Romulus too “was torn to pieces by the hands of a hundred senators”[51] and after death ascended into heaven and received worship (Arnobius, Against the Heathen 1.41). Livy tells of how Romulus was “carried up on high by a whirlwind” and that immediately afterward “every man present hailed him as a god and son of a god”[52] (The Early History of Rome 1.16). As we can see from these three cases—Hercules, Asclepius, and Romulus—ascent into heaven was a common way of talking about deification. For Cicero, this was an obvious fact. People “who conferred outstanding benefits were translated to heaven through their fame and our gratitude”[53] (Nature 2.62). Consequently, Jesus' own resurrection and ascension would have triggered Gentiles to intuit his divinity. Commenting on the appearance of the immortalized Christ to the eleven in Galilee, Wendy Cotter said, “It is fair to say that the scene found in [Mat] 28:16-20 would be understood by a Greco-Roman audience, Jew or Gentile, as an apotheosis of Jesus.”[54] Although I beg to differ with Cotter's whole cloth inclusion of Jews here, it's hard to see how else non-Jews would have regarded the risen Christ. Litwa adds Rev 1.13-16 “[W]here he [Jesus] appears with all the accoutrements of the divine: a shining face, an overwhelming voice, luminescent clothing, and so on.”[55] In this brief survey we've seen that several key events in the story of Jesus told in the Gospels would have caused Greco-Roman hearers to intuit deity, including his divine conception, miracles, healing ministry, transfiguration, resurrection, and ascension. In their original context of second temple Judaism, these very same incidents would have resonated quite differently. His divine conception authenticated Jesus as the second Adam (Luke 3.38; Rom 5.14; 1 Cor 15.45) and God's Davidic son (2 Sam 7.14; Ps 2.7; Lk 1.32, 35). If Matthew or Luke wanted readers to understand that Jesus was divine based on his conception and birth, they failed to make such intentions explicit in the text. Rather, the birth narratives appear to have a much more modest aim—to persuade readers that Jesus had a credible claim to be Israel's messiah. His miracles show that “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power…for God was with him” (Acts 10.38; cf. Jn 3.2; 10.32, 38). Rather than concluding Jesus to be a god, Jewish witnesses to his healing of a paralyzed man “glorified God, who had given such authority to men” (Mat 9.8). Over and over, especially in the Gospel of John, Jesus directs people's attention to his Father who was doing the works in and through him (Jn 5.19, 30; 8.28; 12.49; 14.10). Seeing Jesus raise someone from the dead suggested to his original Jewish audience that “a great prophet has arisen among us” (Lk 7.16). The transfiguration, in its original setting, is an eschatological vision not a divine epiphany. Placement in the synoptic Gospels just after Jesus' promise that some there would not die before seeing the kingdom come sets the hermeneutical frame. “The transfiguration,” says William Lane, “was a momentary, but real (and witnessed) manifestation of Jesus' sovereign power which pointed beyond itself to the Parousia, when he will come ‘with power and glory.'”[56] If eschatology is the foreground, the background for the transfiguration was Moses' ascent of Sinai when he also encountered God and became radiant.[57] Viewed from the lenses of Moses' ascent and the eschaton, the transfiguration of Jesus is about his identity as God's definitive chosen ruler, not about any kind of innate divinity. Lastly, the resurrection and ascension validated Jesus' messianic claims to be the ruler of the age to come (Acts 17.31; Rom 1.4). Rather than concluding Jesus was deity, early Jewish Christians concluded these events showed that “God has made him both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2.36). The interpretative backgrounds for Jesus' ascension were not stories about Heracles, Asclepius, or Romulus. No, the key oracle that framed the Israelite understanding was the messianic psalm in which Yahweh told David's Lord to “Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool” (Psalm 110.1). The idea is of a temporary sojourn in heaven until exercising the authority of his scepter to rule over earth from Zion. Once again, the biblical texts remain completely silent about deification. But even if the original meanings of Jesus' birth, ministry, transfiguration, resurrection, and ascension have messianic overtones when interpreted within the Jewish milieu, these same stories began to communicate various ideas of deity to Gentile converts in the generations that followed. We find little snippets from historical sources beginning in the second century and growing with time. Evidence of Belief in Jesus' as a Greco-Roman Deity To begin with, we have two non-Christian instances where Romans regarded Jesus as a deity within typical Greco-Roman categories. The first comes to us from Tertullian and Eusebius who mention an intriguing story about Tiberius' request to the Roman senate to deify Christ. Convinced by “intelligence from Palestine of events which had clearly shown the truth of Christ's divinity”[58] Tiberius proposed the matter to the senate (Apology 5). Eusebius adds that Tiberius learned that “many believed him to be a god in rising from the dead”[59] (Church History 2.2). As expected, the senate rejected the proposal. I mention this story, not because I can establish its historicity, but because it portrays how Tiberius would have thought about Jesus if he had heard about his miracles and resurrection. Another important incident is from one of the governor Pliny the Younger's letters to the emperor Trajan. Having investigated some people accused of Christianity, he found “they had met regularly before dawn on a fixed day to chant verses alternately amongst themselves in honour of Christ as if to a god”[60] (Letter 96). To an outside imperial observer like Pliny, the Christians believed in a man who had performed miracles, defeated death, and now lived in heaven. Calling him a god was just the natural way of talking about such a person. Pliny would not have thought Jesus was superior to the deified Roman emperors much less Zeus or the Olympic gods. If he believed in Jesus at all, he would have regarded him as another Mediterranean prophet who escaped Hades to enjoy apotheosis. Another interesting text to consider is the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. This apocryphal text tells the story of Jesus' childhood between the ages of five and twelve. Jesus is impetuous, powerful, and brilliant. Unsure to conclude that Jesus was “either god or angel,”[61] his teacher remands him to Joseph's custody (7). Later, a crowd of onlookers ponders whether the child is a god or a heavenly messenger after he raises an infant from the dead (17). A year later Jesus raised a construction man who had fallen to his death back to life (18). Once again, the crowd asked if the child was from heaven. Although some historians are quick to assume the lofty conceptions of Justin and his successors about the logos were commonplace in the early Christianity, Litwa points out, “The spell of the Logos could only bewitch a very small circle of Christian elites… In IGT, we find a Jesus who is divine according to different canons, the canons of popular Mediterranean theology.”[62] Another important though often overlooked scholarly group of Christians in the second century was led by a certain Theodotus of Byzantium.[63] Typically referred to by their heresiological label “Theodotians,” these dynamic monarchians lived in Rome and claimed that they held to the original Christology before it had been corrupted under Bishop Zephyrinus (Eusebius, Church History 5.28). Theodotus believed in the virgin birth, but not in his pre-existence or that he was god/God (Pseudo-Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies 7.35.1-2; 10.23.1-2). He thought that Jesus was not able to perform any miracles until his baptism when he received the Christ/Spirit. Pseudo-Hippolytus goes on to say, “But they do not want him to have become a god when the Spirit descended. Others say that he became a god after he rose from the dead.”[64] This last tantalizing remark implies that the Theodotians could affirm Jesus as a god after his resurrection though they denied his pre-existence. Although strict unitarians, they could regard Jesus as a god in that he was an ascended immortalized being who lived in heaven—not equal to the Father, but far superior to all humans on earth. Justin Martyr presents another interesting case to consider. Thoroughly acquainted with Greco-Roman literature and especially the philosophy of Plato, Justin sees Christ as a god whom the Father begot before all other creatures. He calls him “son, or wisdom, or angel, or god, or lord, or word”[65] (Dialogue with Trypho 61).  For Justin Christ is “at the same time angel and god and lord and man”[66] (59). Jesus was “of old the Word, appearing at one time in the form of fire, at another under the guise of incorporeal beings, but now, at the will of God, after becoming man for mankind”[67] (First Apology 63). In fact, Justin is quite comfortable to compare Christ to deified heroes and emperors. He says, “[W]e propose nothing new or different from that which you say about the so-called sons of Jupiter [Zeus] by your respected writers… And what about the emperors who die among you, whom you think worthy to be deified?”[68] (21). He readily accepts the parallels with Mercury, Perseus, Asclepius, Bacchus, and Hercules, but argues that Jesus is superior to them (22).[69] Nevertheless, he considered Jesus to be in “a place second to the unchanging and eternal God”[70] (13). The Father is “the Most True God” whereas the Son is he “who came forth from Him”[71] (6). Even as lates as Origen, Greco-Roman concepts of deity persist. In responding to Celsus' claim that no god or son of God has ever come down, Origen responds by stating such a statement would overthrow the stories of Pythian Apollo, Asclepius, and the other gods who descended (Against Celsus 5.2). My point here is not to say Origen believed in all the old myths, but to show how Origen reached for these stories as analogies to explain the incarnation of the logos. When Celsus argued that he would rather believe in the deity of Asclepius, Dionysus, and Hercules than Christ, Origen responded with a moral rather than ontological argument (3.42). He asks how these gods have improved the characters of anyone. Origen admits Celsus' argument “which places the forenamed individuals upon an equality with Jesus” might have force, however in light of the disreputable behavior of these gods, “how could you any longer say, with any show of reason, that these men, on putting aside their mortal body, became gods rather than Jesus?”[72] (3.42). Origen's Christology is far too broad and complicated to cover here. Undoubtedly, his work on eternal generation laid the foundation on which fourth century Christians could build homoousion Christology. Nevertheless, he retained some of the earlier subordinationist impulses of his forebearers. In his book On Prayer, he rebukes praying to Jesus as a crude error, instead advocating prayer to God alone (10). In his Commentary on John he repeatedly asserts that the Father is greater than his logos (1.40; 2.6; 6.23). Thus, Origen is a theologian on the seam of the times. He's both a subordinationist and a believer in the Son's eternal and divine ontology. Now, I want to be careful here. I'm not saying that all early Christians believed Jesus was a deified man like Asclepius or a descended god like Apollo or a reincarnated soul like Pythagoras. More often than not, thinking Christians whose works survive until today tended to eschew the parallels, simultaneously elevating Christ as high as possible while demoting the gods to mere demons. Still, Litwa is inciteful when he writes: It seems likely that early Christians shared the widespread cultural assumption that a resurrected, immortalized being was worthy of worship and thus divine. …Nonetheless there is a difference…Jesus, it appears, was never honored as an independent deity. Rather, he was always worshiped as Yahweh's subordinate. Naturally Heracles and Asclepius were Zeus' subordinates, but they were also members of a larger divine family. Jesus does not enter a pantheon but assumes a distinctive status as God's chief agent and plenipotentiary. It is this status that, to Christian insiders, placed Jesus in a category far above the likes of Heracles, Romulus, and Asclepius who were in turn demoted to the rank of δαίμονες [daimons].[73] Conclusion I began by asking the question, "What did early Christians mean by saying Jesus is god?" We noted that the ancient idea of agency (Jesus is God/god because he represents Yahweh), though present in Hebrew and Christian scripture, didn't play much of a role in how Gentile Christians thought about Jesus. Or if it did, those texts did not survive. By the time we enter the postapostolic era, a majority of Christianity was Gentile and little communication occurred with the Jewish Christians that survived in the East. As such, we turned our attention to Greco-Roman theology to tune our ears to hear the story of Jesus the way they would have. We learned about their multifaceted array of divinities. We saw that gods can come down and take the form of humans and humans can go up and take the form of gods. We found evidence for this kind of thinking in both non-Christian and Christian sources in the second and third centuries. Now it is time to return to the question I began with: “When early Christian authors called Jesus “god” what did they mean?” We saw that the idea of a deified man was present in the non-Christian witnesses of Tiberius and Pliny but made scant appearance in our Christian literature except for the Theodotians. As for the idea that a god came down to become a man, we found evidence in The Infancy Gospel of Thomas, Justin, and Origen.[74] Of course, we find a spectrum within this view, from Justin's designation of Jesus as a second god to Origen's more philosophically nuanced understanding. Still, it's worth noting as R. P. C. Hanson observed that, “With the exception of Athanasius virtually every theologian, East and West, accepted some form of subordinationism at least up to the year 355.”[75] Whether any Christians before Alexander and Athanasius of Alexandria held to the sophisticated idea of consubstantiality depends on showing evidence of the belief that the Son was coequal, coeternal, and coessential with the Father prior to Nicea. (Readers interested in the case for this view should consult Michael Bird's Jesus among the Gods in which he attempted the extraordinary feat of finding proto-Nicene Christology in the first two centuries, a task typically associated with maverick apologists not peer-reviewed historians.) In conclusion, the answer to our driving question about the meaning of “Jesus as god” is that the answer depends on whom we ask. If we ask the Theodotians, Jesus is a god because that's just what one calls an immortalized man who lives in heaven.[76] If we ask those holding a docetic Christology, the answer is that a god came down in appearance as a man. If we ask a logos subordinationist, they'll tell us that Jesus existed as the god through whom the supreme God created the universe before he became a human being. If we ask Tertullian, Jesus is god because he derives his substance from the Father, though he has a lesser portion of divinity.[77] If we ask Athanasius, he'll wax eloquent about how Jesus is of the same substance as the Father equal in status and eternality. The bottom line is that there was not one answer to this question prior to the fourth century. Answers depend on whom we ask and when they lived. Still, we can't help but wonder about the more tantalizing question of development. Which Christology was first and which ones evolved under social, intellectual, and political pressures? In the quest to specify the various stages of development in the Christologies of the ante-Nicene period, this Greco-Roman perspective may just provide the missing link between the reserved and limited way that the NT applies theos to Jesus in the first century and the homoousian view that eventually garnered imperial support in the fourth century. How easy would it have been for fresh converts from the Greco-Roman world to unintentionally mishear the story of Jesus? How easy would it have been for them to fit Jesus into their own categories of descended gods and ascended humans? With the unmooring of Gentile Christianity from its Jewish heritage, is it any wonder that Christologies began to drift out to sea? Now I'm not suggesting that all Christians went through a steady development from a human Jesus to a pre-existent Christ, to an eternal God the Son, to the Chalcedonian hypostatic union. As I mentioned above, plenty of other options were around and every church had its conservatives in addition to its innovators. The story is messy and uneven with competing views spread across huge geographic distances. Furthermore, many Christians probably were content to leave such theological nuances fuzzy, rather than seeking doctrinal precision on Christ's relation to his God and Father. Whatever the case may be, we dare not ignore the influence of Greco-Roman theology in our accounts of Christological development in the Mediterranean world of the first three centuries.    Bibliography The Homeric Hymns. Translated by Michael Crudden. New York, NY: Oxford, 2008. Antioch, Theophilus of. To Autolycus. Translated by Marcus Dods. Vol. 2. Ante-Nicene Fathers. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001. Aphrahat. The Demonstrations. Translated by Ellen Muehlberger. Vol. 3. The Cambridge Edition of Early Christian Writings. Edited by Mark DelCogliano. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge, 2022. Apollodorus. The Library of Greek Mythology. Translated by Robin Hard. Oxford, UK: Oxford, 1998. Appian. The Civil Wars. Translated by John Carter. London, UK: Penguin, 1996. Arnobius. Against the Heathen. Translated by Hamilton Bryce and Hugh Campbell. Vol. 6. Ante-Nicene Fathers. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995. Arrian. The Campaigns of Alexander. Translated by Aubrey De Sélincourt. London, UK: Penguin, 1971. Bird, Michael F. Jesus among the Gods. Waco, TX: Baylor, 2022. Blackburn, Barry. Theios Aner and the Markan Miracle Traditions. Tübingen, Germany: J. C. B. Mohr, 1991. Callimachus. Hymn to Artemis. Translated by Susan A. Stephens. Callimachus: The Hymns. New York, NY: Oxford, 2015. Cicero. The Nature of the Gods. Translated by Patrick Gerard Walsh. Oxford, UK: Oxford, 2008. Cornutus, Lucius Annaeus. Greek Theology. Translated by George Boys-Stones. Greek Theology, Fragments, and Testimonia. Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2018. Cotter, Wendy. "Greco-Roman Apotheosis Traditions and the Resurrection Appearances in Matthew." In The Gospel of Matthew in Current Study. Edited by David E. Aune. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001. Cyprian. Treatise 6: On the Vanity of Idols. Translated by Ernest Wallis. Vol. 5. Ante-Nicene Fathers. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995. Dittenberger, W. Orientis Graecae Inscriptiones Selectae. Vol. 2. Hildesheim: Olms, 1960. Eusebius. The Church History. Translated by Paul L. Maier. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2007. Fredriksen, Paula. "How High Can Early High Christology Be?" In Monotheism and Christology in Greco-Roman Antiquity. Edited by Matthew V. Novenson. Vol. 180.vol. Supplements to Novum Testamentum. Leiden: Brill, 2020. Hanson, R. P. C. Search for a Christian Doctrine of God. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007. Hart, George. The Routledge Dictionary of Egyptian Gods and Goddesses. 2nd ed. Oxford, UK: Routledge, 2005. Homer. The Odyssey. Translated by Robert Fagles. New York, NY: Penguin, 1997. Iamblichus. Life of Pythagoras. Translated by Thomas Taylor. Iamblichus' Life of Pythagoras. Delhi, IN: Zinc Read, 2023. Justin Martyr. Dialogue with Trypho. Translated by Thomas B. Falls. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2003. Laertius, Diogenes. Life of Pythagoras. Translated by Kenneth Sylvan Guthrie. The Pythagorean Sourcebook and Library. Edited by David R. Fideler. Grand Rapids, MI: Phanes Press, 1988. Laertius, Diogenes. Lives of the Eminent Philosophers. Translated by Pamela Mensch. Edited by James Miller. New York, NY: Oxford, 2020. Lane, William L. The Gospel of Mark. Nicnt, edited by F. F. Bruce Ned B. Stonehouse, and Gordon D. Fee. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974. Litwa, M. David. Iesus Deus. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2014. Livy. The Early History of Rome. Translated by Aubrey De Sélincourt. London, UK: Penguin, 2002. Origen. Against Celsus. Translated by Frederick Crombie. Vol. 4. The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003. Pausanias. Guide to Greece. Translated by Peter Levi. London, UK: Penguin, 1979. Perriman, Andrew. In the Form of a God. Studies in Early Christology, edited by David Capes Michael Bird, and Scott Harrower. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2022. Philostratus. Letters of Apollonius. Vol. 458. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard, 2006. Plutarch. Life of Alexander. Translated by Ian Scott-Kilvert and Timothy E. Duff. The Age of Alexander. London, UK: Penguin, 2011. Porphyry. Life of Pythagoras. Translated by Kenneth Sylvan Guthrie. The Pythagorean Sourcebook and Library. Edited by David Fideler. Grand Rapids, MI: Phanes Press, 1988. Pseudo-Clement. Recognitions. Translated by Thomas Smith. Vol. 8. Ante Nicene Fathers. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003. Pseudo-Hippolytus. Refutation of All Heresies. Translated by David Litwa. Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2016. Pseudo-Thomas. Infancy Gospel of Thomas. Translated by James Orr. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Co., 1903. Psuedo-Clement. Homilies. Translated by Peter Peterson. Vol. 8. Ante-Nicene Fathers. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1897. Siculus, Diodorus. The Historical Library. Translated by Charles Henry Oldfather. Vol. 1. Edited by Giles Laurén: Sophron Editor, 2017. Strabo. The Geography. Translated by Duane W. Roller. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge, 2020. Tertullian. Against Praxeas. Translated by Holmes. Vol. 3. Ante Nice Fathers. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003. Tertullian. Apology. Translated by S. Thelwall. Vol. 3. Ante-Nicene Fathers, edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003. Younger, Pliny the. The Letters of the Younger Pliny. Translated by Betty Radice. London: Penguin, 1969. End Notes [1] For the remainder of this paper, I will use the lower case “god” for all references to deity outside of Yahweh, the Father of Christ. I do this because all our ancient texts lack capitalization and our modern capitalization rules imply a theology that is anachronistic and unhelpful for the present inquiry. [2] Christopher Kaiser wrote, “Explicit references to Jesus as ‘God' in the New Testament are very few, and even those few are generally plagued with uncertainties of either text or interpretation.” Christopher B. Kaiser, The Doctrine of God: A Historical Survey (London: Marshall Morgan & Scott, 1982), 29. Other scholars such as Raymond Brown (Jesus: God and Man), Jason David BeDuhn (Truth in Translation), and Brian Wright (“Jesus as θεός: A Textual Examination” in Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament) have expressed similar sentiments. [3] John 20.28; Hebrews 1.8; Titus 2.13; 2 Peter 1.1; Romans 9.5; and 1 John 5.20. [4] See Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians 12.2 where a manuscript difference determines whether or not Polycarp called Jesus god or lord. Textual corruption is most acute in Igantius' corpus. Although it's been common to dismiss the long recension as an “Arian” corruption, claiming the middle recension to be as pure and uncontaminated as freshly fallen snow upon which a foot has never trodden, such an uncritical view is beginning to give way to more honest analysis. See Paul Gilliam III's Ignatius of Antioch and the Arian Controversy (Leiden: Brill, 2017) for a recent treatment of Christological corruption in the middle recension. [5] See the entries for  אֱלֹהִיםand θεός in the Hebrew Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (HALOT), the Brown Driver Briggs Lexicon (BDB), Eerdmans Dictionary, Kohlenberger/Mounce Concise Hebrew-Aramaic Dictionary of the Old Testament, the Bauer Danker Arndt Gingrich Lexicon (BDAG), Friberg Greek Lexicon, and Thayer's Greek Lexicon. [6] See notes on Is 9.6 and Ps 45.6. [7] ZIBBC: “In what sense can the king be called “god”? By virtue of his divine appointment, the king in the ancient Near East stood before his subjects as a representative of the divine realm. …In fact, the term “gods“ (ʾelōhı̂m) is used of priests who functioned as judges in the Israelite temple judicial system (Ex. 21:6; 22:8-9; see comments on 58:1; 82:6-7).” John W. Hilber, “Psalms,” in The Minor Prophets, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, vol. 5 of Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary: Old Testament. ed. John H. Walton (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009), 358. [8] Around a.d. 340, Aphrahat of Persia advised his fellow Christians to reply to Jewish critics who questioned why “You call a human being ‘God'” (Demonstrations 17.1). He said, “For the honored name of the divinity is granted event ot rightoues human beings, when they are worthy of being called by it…[W]hen he chose Moses, his friend and his beloved…he called him “god.” …We call him God, just as he named Moses with his own name…The name of the divinity was granted for great honor in the world. To whom he wishes, God appoints it” (17.3, 4, 5). Aphrahat, The Demonstrations, trans., Ellen Muehlberger, vol. 3, The Cambridge Edition of Early Christian Writings (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge, 2022), 213-15. In the Clementine Recognitions we find a brief mention of the concept:  “Therefore the name God is applied in three ways: either because he to whom it is given is truly God, or because he is the servant of him who is truly; and for the honour of the sender, that his authority may be full, he that is sent is called by the name of him who sends, as is often done in respect of angels: for when they appear to a man, if he is a wise and intelligent man, he asks the name of him who appears to him, that he may acknowledge at once the honour of the sent, and the authority of the sender” (2.42). Pseudo-Clement, Recognitions, trans., Thomas Smith, vol. 8, Ante Nicene Fathers (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003). [9] Michael F. Bird, Jesus among the Gods (Waco, TX: Baylor, 2022), 13. [10] Andrew Perriman, In the Form of a God, Studies in Early Christology, ed. David Capes Michael Bird, and Scott Harrower (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2022), 130. [11] Paula Fredriksen, "How High Can Early High Christology Be?," in Monotheism and Christology in Greco-Roman Antiquity, ed. Matthew V. Novenson, vol. 180 (Leiden: Brill, 2020), 296, 99. [12] ibid. [13] See Gen 18.1; Ex 3.2; 24.11; Is 6.1; Ezk 1.28. [14] Compare the Masoretic Text of Psalm 8.6 to the Septuagint and Hebrews 2.7. [15] Homer, The Odyssey, trans., Robert Fagles (New York, NY: Penguin, 1997), 370. [16] Diodorus Siculus, The Historical Library, trans., Charles Henry Oldfather, vol. 1 (Sophron Editor, 2017), 340. [17] Uranus met death at the brutal hands of his own son, Kronos who emasculated him and let bleed out, resulting in his deification (Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel 1.10). Later on, after suffering a fatal disease, Kronos himself experienced deification, becoming the planet Saturn (ibid.). Zeus married Hera and they produced Osiris (Dionysus), Isis (Demeter), Typhon, Apollo, and Aphrodite (ibid. 2.1). [18] Lucius Annaeus Cornutus, Greek Theology, trans., George Boys-Stones, Greek Theology, Fragments, and Testimonia (Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2018), 123. [19] Apollodorus, The Library of Greek Mythology, trans., Robin Hard (Oxford, UK: Oxford, 1998), 111. [20] Pausanias, Guide to Greece, trans., Peter Levi (London, UK: Penguin, 1979), 98. [21] Strabo, The Geography, trans., Duane W. Roller (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge, 2020), 281. [22] Psuedo-Clement, Homilies, trans., Peter Peterson, vol. 8, Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1897). Greek: “αὐτὸν δὲ ὡς θεὸν ἐθρήσκευσαν” from Jacques Paul Migne, Patrologia Graeca, taken from Accordance (PSCLEMH-T), OakTree Software, Inc., 2018, Version 1.1. [23] See Barry Blackburn, Theios Aner and the Markan Miracle Traditions (Tübingen, Germany: J. C. B. Mohr, 1991), 32. [24] Diogenes Laertius, Lives of the Eminent Philosophers, trans., Pamela Mensch (New York, NY: Oxford, 2020), 39. [25] Iamblichus, Life of Pythagoras, trans., Thomas Taylor, Iamblichus' Life of Pythagoras (Delhi, IN: Zinc Read, 2023), 2. [26] Diogenes Laertius, Life of Pythagoras, trans., Kenneth Sylvan Guthrie, The Pythagorean Sourcebook and Library (Grand Rapids, MI: Phanes Press, 1988), 142. [27] See the list in Blackburn, 39. He corroborates miracle stories from Diogenus Laertius, Iamblichus, Apollonius, Nicomachus, and Philostratus. [28] Porphyry, Life of Pythagoras, trans., Kenneth Sylvan Guthrie, The Pythagorean Sourcebook and Library (Grand Rapids, MI: Phanes Press, 1988), 128-9. [29] Iamblichus,  68. [30] What I call “resurrection” refers to the phrase, “Thou shalt bring back from Hades a dead man's strength.” Diogenes Laertius 8.2.59, trans. R. D. Hicks. [31] Laertius, "Lives of the Eminent Philosophers," 306. Two stories of his deification survive: in one Empedocles disappears in the middle of the night after hearing an extremely loud voice calling his name. After this the people concluded that they should sacrifice to him since he had become a god (8.68). In the other account, Empedocles climbs Etna and leaps into the fiery volcanic crater “to strengthen the rumor that he had become a god” (8.69). [32] Pausanias,  192. Sextus Empiricus says Asclepius raised up people who had died at Thebes as well as raising up the dead body of Tyndaros (Against the Professors 1.261). [33] Cicero adds that the Arcadians worship Asclepius (Nature 3.57). [34] In another instance, he confronted and cast out a demon from a licentious young man (Life 4.20). [35] The phrase is “περὶ ἐμοῦ καὶ θεοῖς εἴρηται ὡς περὶ θείου ἀνδρὸς.” Philostratus, Letters of Apollonius, vol. 458, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, MA: Harvard, 2006). [36] See George Hart, The Routledge Dictionary of Egyptian Gods and Goddesses, 2nd ed. (Oxford, UK: Routledge, 2005), 3. [37] Plutarch, Life of Alexander, trans., Ian Scott-Kilvert and Timothy E. Duff, The Age of Alexander (London, UK: Penguin, 2011), 311. Arrian includes a story about Anaxarchus advocating paying divine honors to Alexander through prostration. The Macedonians refused but the Persian members of his entourage “rose from their seats and one by one grovelled on the floor before the King.” Arrian, The Campaigns of Alexander, trans., Aubrey De Sélincourt (London, UK: Penguin, 1971), 222. [38] Translation my own from “Ἀντίοχος ὁ Θεὸς Δίκαιος Ἐπιφανὴς Φιλορωμαῖος Φιλέλλην.” Inscription at Nemrut Dağ, accessible at https://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/mithras/display.php?page=cimrm32. See also https://zeugma.packhum.org/pdfs/v1ch09.pdf. [39] Greek taken from W. Dittenberger, Orientis Graecae Inscriptiones Selectae, vol. 2 (Hildesheim: Olms, 1960), 48-60. Of particular note is the definite article before θεός. They didn't celebrate the birthday of a god, but the birthday of the god. [40] Appian, The Civil Wars, trans., John Carter (London, UK: Penguin, 1996), 149. [41] M. David Litwa, Iesus Deus (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2014), 20. [42] ibid. [43] Blackburn, 92-3. [44] The Homeric Hymns, trans., Michael Crudden (New York, NY: Oxford, 2008), 38. [45] "The Homeric Hymns," 14. [46] Homer,  344. [47] Theophilus of Antioch, To Autolycus, trans., Marcus Dods, vol. 2, Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001). [48] Callimachus, Hymn to Artemis, trans., Susan A. Stephens, Callimachus: The Hymns (New York, NY: Oxford, 2015), 119. [49] Siculus,  234. [50] Cyprian, Treatise 6: On the Vanity of Idols, trans., Ernest Wallis, vol. 5, Ante-Nicene Fathers (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995). [51] Arnobius, Against the Heathen, trans., Hamilton Bryce and Hugh Campbell, vol. 6, Ante-Nicene Fathers (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995). [52] Livy, The Early History of Rome, trans., Aubrey De Sélincourt (London, UK: Penguin, 2002), 49. [53] Cicero, The Nature of the Gods, trans., Patrick Gerard Walsh (Oxford, UK: Oxford, 2008), 69. [54] Wendy Cotter, "Greco-Roman Apotheosis Traditions and the Resurrection Appearances in Matthew," in The Gospel of Matthew in Current Study, ed. David E. Aune (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001), 149. [55] Litwa, 170. [56] William L. Lane, The Gospel of Mark, Nicnt, ed. F. F. Bruce Ned B. Stonehouse, and Gordon D. Fee (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974). [57] “Recent commentators have stressed that the best background for understanding the Markan transfiguration is the story of Moses' ascent up Mount Sinai (Exod. 24 and 34).” Litwa, 123. [58] Tertullian, Apology, trans. S. Thelwall, vol. 3, Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003). [59] Eusebius, The Church History, trans. Paul L. Maier (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2007), 54. [60] Pliny the Younger, The Letters of the Younger Pliny, trans., Betty Radice (London: Penguin, 1969), 294. [61] Pseudo-Thomas, Infancy Gospel of Thomas, trans., James Orr (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Co., 1903), 25. [62] Litwa, 83. [63] For sources on Theodotus, see Pseduo-Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies 7.35.1-2; 10.23.1-2; Pseudo-Tertullian, Against All Heresies 8.2; Eusebius, Church History 5.28. [64] Pseudo-Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies, trans., David Litwa (Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2016), 571. [65] I took the liberty to decapitalize these appellatives. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, trans. Thomas B. Falls (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2003), 244. [66] Justin Martyr, 241. (Altered, see previous footnote.) [67] Justin Martyr, 102. [68] Justin Martyr, 56-7. [69] Arnobius makes a similar argument in Against the Heathen 1.38-39 “Is he not worthy to be called a god by us and felt to be a god on account of the favor or such great benefits? For if you have enrolled Liber among the gods because he discovered the use of wine, and Ceres the use of bread, Aesculapius the use of medicines, Minerva the use of oil, Triptolemus plowing, and Hercules because he conquered and restrained beasts, thieves, and the many-headed hydra…So then, ought we not to consider Christ a god, and to bestow upon him all the worship due to his divinity?” Translation from Litwa, 105. [70] Justin Martyr, 46. [71] Justin Martyr, 39. [72] Origen, Against Celsus, trans. Frederick Crombie, vol. 4, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003). [73] Litwa, 173. [74] I could easily multiply examples of this by looking at Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and many others. [75] The obvious exception to Hanson's statement were thinkers like Sabellius and Praxeas who believed that the Father himself came down as a human being. R. P. C. Hanson, Search for a Christian Doctrine of God (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007), xix. [76] Interestingly, even some of the biblical unitarians of the period were comfortable with calling Jesus god, though they limited his divinity to his post-resurrection life. [77] Tertullian writes, “[T]he Father is not the same as the Son, since they differ one from the other in the mode of their being. For the Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole, as He Himself acknowledges: “My Father is greater than I.” In the Psalm His inferiority is described as being “a little lower than the angels.” Thus the Father is distinct from the Son, being greater than the Son” (Against Praxeas 9). Tertullian, Against Praxeas, trans., Holmes, vol. 3, Ante Nice Fathers (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003).

durée : 00:03:48 - Le Pourquoi du comment : philo - par : Frédéric Worms - Partir de la sensation, ne postuler de rien. L'empirisme est très prudent. Il dérive du terme grec "empeiria" qui désigne l'expérience. Tous les grands empiristes, Sextus Empiricus, Montaigne, David Hume, Gilles Deleuze partent d'abord de l'expérience de la diversité.

Neil Young is very special to me.  He's a love him or hate him artist.  If you love him you are in the right place.  Attempting to review Neil Young in 60 minutes is as the Greek philosopher Sextus Empiricus once said "It is possible and it is not possible". The Story of Rock and Roll. TSORR - Your one-stop shop for Rock

Part 5 in a series of interviews on the book I'm working on, Neither/Nor. In this episode, ⁠⁠Isabela Granic⁠⁠ begin the discussion with Whitehead and his assertion that philosophy must be in conversation with the sciences. Topics discussed: My enormous Kuhn thread Are we in a scientific crisis? My recording of Kuhn's lecture: "Objectivity, Value Judgment, and Theory Choice" (1973) Kuhn's relationship to the Buddha The Buddha's relationship to Darwin Schopenhauer and his case for using intuition versus rational reasoning Buddha's dependent origination and how “backward causality” is precisely the process that Schopenhauer espouses in his writing about intuition, Kuhn with his observations of paradigm shifts, and Darwin with his careful consideration of catgories of species Framed this discussion and the podcast as a whole as a process of laying out the many different strands and nodes of ideas that need to be laid bare before selecting and constructing the coherent theoretical framework for Neither/Nor, the book I'm writing Recent podcasts on emptiness with Jake Orthwein and Rob Knight The Nietzsche quote I mention is this one, from a draft of Ecce Homo (1888) Hypercarnivory: https://archive.org/details/CopesRuleHypercarnivory Are we in a revolution? A crisis? To come back to: Heraclitus, Zhuangzi, Sextus Empiricus, Hannah Arendt, Kropotkin's Mutual Aid Ended with the impossible question: Are we living at the cusp of a paradigm shift? Previous episodes: Part 4 of this series: Language and Experience Part 3 of this series: ⁠AI and Pyrrhonism⁠ Part 2 of this series: ⁠⁠A Philosophical Journey⁠ Part 1 of this series: ⁠Causality and Conditionality⁠ Clerestory by ⁠⁠Bryan Kam⁠⁠ • Infrequent updates at ⁠⁠Substack⁠⁠ • All my work plus exclusive content at ⁠⁠Patreon⁠⁠ Show notes https://pod.fo/e/171350 --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/bkam/message

One key characteristic of an independent mind is not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks.” This podcast discusses skepticism and the practical application of this ancient philosophy in our modern lives to make us better thinkers. We go all the way back to Pyrrho, Sextus Empiricus, and other ancient Greek philosophers to look at the emergence of skepticism from around 360 BCE to the 3rd century CE. Skepticism often gets a bad rap. It is much more than some cooky denying anything, and everything exists. There is so much more to analyze. Albert Einstein hit the nail on the head when he said, “blind belief in authority is the enemy of truth.” When properly applied in our daily lives, skepticism helps us to question and doubt superficial or ideological dogma. Also, practicing skepticism fosters humility, which seems in short supply across modern culture. In our discussion today, we dive deep into the pros, cons, and, more importantly, how you, in your life, can use skepticism to think more clearly and effectively to make better decisions in life!Beyond this podcast, join me free to take your understanding of this topic to an entirely different level and become a subscriber to the Intellectual Freedom Podcast on Substack.  It is FREE! https://intellectualfreedom.substack.com/. Follow Dr. Hopkins on Twitter: https://twitter.com/DavidDHopkins

Het hoorcollege Van Plato tot Sextus Empericus is het tweede deel in een serie hoorcolleges door Johan Braeckman over een geschiedenis van de westerse wijsbegeerte.Uitgegeven door Home Academy Publishers B.V.Spreker(s): Johan Braeckman

The Sentences Of Sextus - Gnostic Text From The Nag Hammadi Library - Full Audio Book. The Sentences of Sextus (not to be confused with Sextus Empiricus) is a Hellenistic Pythagorean text, modified to reflect a Christian viewpoint which was popular among Christians. The earliest mention of the Sentences is in the mid 3rd century by Origen. While previously known from other versions, a partial Coptic translation appears in one of the books of the New Testament apocrypha recovered in the Nag Hammadi library. The Nag Hammadi Library scriptures can be found at https://amzn.to/2lzpFoa Please consider supporting my work and download this audio as part of the ESOTERIC AND OCCULT WISDOM - MASTER COLLECTION (an ongoing collection of Gnostic, alchemical, Hermetic, and related occult/spiritual audio projects that span dozens of hours) at https://altrusiangrace.bandcamp.com/ *JOIN MY PATREON at https://www.patreon.com/altrusiangracemedia *BECOME A YOUTUBE CHANNEL MEMBER at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMzRTOugvDLwhSwJdoSWBZA/join *JOIN THE CULT OF STARRY WISDOM at https://altrusiangrace.bandcamp.com/starry-wisdom-cult *MY TSHIRTS AND DESIGNS ON AMAZON at https://amzn.to/3peS9j3 *MY NEW 2022 MERCH LINE "OCCULT NOUVEAU" at https://amzn.to/3OeUHZL *MY TSHIRTS AND DESIGNS ON TEEPUBLIC at https://teepublic.sjv.io/XxvPDX *LICENSE MY MUSIC FOR YOUR PROJECT at https://www.pond5.com/artist/altrusiangracemedia *MY BOOKS ON AMAZON at https://amzn.to/3oQGh6A As an Amazon Associate I earn a small amount from qualifying purchases and it helps to support my channel. Please consider LIKING the video, SUBSCRIBING to the channel, and SHARING the links! These simple actions go a long way in supporting AGM and is truly appreciated!  ~~Places to follow and support Altrusian Grace Media~~ Website ► https://altrusiangrace.blogspot.com/ Bandcamp ► https://altrusiangrace.bandcamp.com Teepublic Store ► https://teepublic.sjv.io/XxvPDX Twitter ► https://twitter.com/AltrusianGrace Rumble ► https://rumble.com/c/c-375437 YouTube ► https://www.youtube.com/AltrusianGraceMedia Odessy ► https://odysee.com/@altrusiangracemedia:1 Bitchute ► https://www.bitchute.com/channel/altrusiangracemedia/ To kindly donate directly to my channel: www.paypal.me/altrusiangrace For inquiries regarding voice-over work or licensing for my work (including music) please contact altrusiangracemedia ((at)) gmail.com AGM BACKUP CONTENT ► https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCO0nCG5aqB1CHyU3Xf0TUbg #Gnosticism #Alchemy #Hermeticism #Occult #Esoteric #Audiobook #Mysticism #Gnostic #Egyptian #Christianity #NagHammadi #Spirituality #Jung  

Each week we look at the most recent events and trends related to data security and privacy. In the 3rd century, Greek philosopher Sextus Empiricus wrote “The mills of the gods grind slowly, but they grind small” referring to the fact that the administration of justice takes a while. More recently, the saying has been updated to a more modern context of “The wheels of justice grind slowly, but they grind exceedingly fine” or the even shorter – “Justice delayed is justice denied.” Follow on LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/company/idtheftcenter/ Follow on Twitter: twitter.com/IDTheftCenter

We recently did a podcast on PRATT arguments (Previously Refuted A Thousand Times) and as a result we had comments regarding arguments that theists put forward. A few weeks ago we answered one from theists which was ‘I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist - Debunked' which van be seen here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdwAlJbKRJM&t=413s Watch This Episode On YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agWzGd_kXxE We carry on with these arguments from theists and look at there are no positive arguments for atheism and debunk this argument. Some of the things we discuss are: 1 - Atheism is the default position 2 - mind is the brain a thing of substance and measure, we have no examples of a mind without a brain 3 - The argument from evil - focusing on the suffering of people and animals in this world and therefore the existence of an all seeing, all knowing, all loving god is unlikely. “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” – Epicurus.. although according to Jason Sylvester it was Sextus Empiricus who actually said this or something very similar 4 - The hiddenness of God - no evidence If you like these podcasts then please consider subscribing to the channel, it will really help spread the message of secularism and atheism to a much wider audience... Website: https://atheismuk.com Apple Podcast: https://www.atheismuk.com/apple-podcast Spotify Podcast: https://www.atheismuk.com/spotify Google Podcast: https://www.atheismuk.com/google-podcast RadioPublic Podcast: https://www.atheismuk.com/radiopublic Give your feedback in the comments.

Om livets stora mysterier kan vi inget veta, bara tro. Men tvivlet gnager ständigt. Om man inte helt avstår från att tänka? Som de antika filosofer Vincent Flink Amble-Naess lyfter fram i denna essä. ESSÄ: Detta är en text där skribenten reflekterar över ett ämne eller ett verk. Åsikter som uttrycks är skribentens egna.Konstnären Apelles hade arbetat med tavlan i månader. Det skulle bli ett mästerverk; det var uppenbart för var och en som såg honom arbeta. En detalj lyckades emellertid gäcka honom: fradgan på kapplöpningshästen i förgrunden. Den föreföll omöjlig att gestalta. Apelles försökte med klarare färger, grövre penslar och mindre vatten i temperan. Han svalde sin stolthet och konsulterade en rival, men också det var lönlöst. Resultaten blev hopplöst onaturliga. Till slut fick han nog, och slängde sin tvättsvamp mot hästen i vredesmod.Folket omkring honom drog efter andan. Apelles kunde knappt tro sina ögon. Svampen hade lämnat ett omisskännligt avtryck över betslet. Hästen tuggade fradga.Anekdoten återges av den grekiska filosofen Sextus Empiricus i boken Pyrrhoniska skisser, från 200-talet e. kr. På samma sätt som Apelles genom sina ansträngningar försökte uppnå ett perfekt konstverk, försöker filosoferna uppnå det goda livet genom att argumentera. De borde veta bättre, skriver Sextus. Först när man inser det meningslösa med hela företaget kan man uppnå målet, och njuta sin sinnesro.Sextus Empiricus var skeptiker, eller pyrrhonist som hans meningsfränder ofta kallades under antiken. Rörelsen fick sitt namn efter förgrundsgestalten Pyrrhon, som var verksam på 300-talet f.Kr. Pyrrhon föräras ett kapitel i historikern Diogenes Laertios bok Berömda filosofers liv och läror, som är vår kanske främsta källa till kunskap om den antika filosofin och dess utövare. Diogenes beskriver Pyrrhon som en dåre, som betvivlade allt han såg. Om en kärra var på väg att köra över honom steg han inte åt sidan. Han var nämligen inte säker på att kärran var verklig. Kanske hade han fallit offer för en synvilla, eller helt enkelt blivit lurad. Om det inte vore för hans många vänner, skriver Diogenes, hade Pyrrhon knappast blivit långlivad.Skildringen är författad 500 år efter Pyrrhons bortgång, och mycket tyder på att informationen är hämtad från en satirisk skrift som publicerades av en av Pyrrhons fiender. Sådana smädeskrifter var vanliga under antiken. Epikurén Colotes skriver att den skeptiska läran gör det omöjligt att leva, eftersom den inte medger några åsikter. Anatomen Galenus frågar sig huruvida skeptikern måste stanna ombord på ett sjunkande skepp eftersom han tvivlar på om det stigande vattnet är verkligt. Ännu år 1748 2000 år efter skeptikernas storhetstid kunde den skotske filosofen David Hume skriva att samhället skulle gå under om Pyrrhons efterföljare fick gehör för sina idéer.Skeptikerna var lätta att häckla. De efterlämnade nämligen inga skrifter där deras lära försvarades. Sextus bok är ett undantag. För den som läser hans Pyrrhoniska skisser framträder en annan bild av skeptikerna än den som förmedlades av deras fiender.Det grekiska ordet skepsis betyder undersökning, och mycket riktigt var den skeptiska filosofin en undersökande filosofi. Föremålet för undersökningarna var i första hand de andra filosoferna. Epikuréerna påstod att världen bestod av atomer, medan aristotelikerna påstod att den bestod av element. Skeptikern betraktade argumenten för och emot de båda inställningarna, och kom fram till att frågan förmodligen inte gick att besvara. Båda sidor verkade ha genomtänkta argument för sin sak, och varje omdöme om vem som hade rätt skulle ofrånkomligen bära på ett mått av godtycke.För Sextus var skepticismen i första hand en serie tankefigurer, vars syfte var att uppnå jämvikt mellan argumenten för och emot varje ställningstagande. Därigenom visade han att våra åsikter nästan aldrig är berättigade. För det mesta kan man lika gärna se saken ur ett annat perspektiv. Inställningen gällde emellertid inte alla delar av livet. I motsats till vad belackarna ville göra gällande hade skeptikerna kunskap om många saker. Det var teorierna de förkastade, det vill säga: åsikter som sätts i samband med varandra, och ger upphov till system. Inställningen är mindre extrem än vad man skulle kunna tro.Sextus hade måhända medgivit att honungsvinet han drack var sött, men han hade aldrig accepterat den vetenskapliga förklaringen: att glukosmolekyler interagerar med receptorer i våra smaklökar, som signalerar till hjärnbarken via elektriska impulser, och får oss att erfara sötma. En sådan slutsats hade krävt en argumentation. Och utöver det fåtal individer som utbildat sig till vetenskapsmän, och själva undersökt saken i ett laboratorium, förlitar sig de flesta av oss på auktoritetsargument. Till exempel:Vetenskapsmännen säger att vinet är sött på grund av molekylerna. Och vetenskapsmännen är pålitliga. Alltså är vinet sött på grund av molekylerna.Sextus hade betraktat en sådan slutledning som inte bara bristfällig, utan rent ut sagt löjeväckande. För det första vet vi inte om vetenskapsmännen verkligen säger att det förhåller sig på det viset; vi har ju knappast träffat dem alla. För det andra vet vi inte om de är pålitliga, oavsett vad de själva påstår om saken. Därför borde vi inte utan vidare acceptera att det finns något sådant som glukosmolekyler eller smaklökar eller receptorer. Att vinet är sött behöver vi däremot inga argument för att komma fram till; det känner vi ju på smaken.Skeptikernas lära formulerades millennier innan den globala uppvärmningen var ett faktum, och för en modern läsare är det uppenbart att deras idéer vore direkt skadliga i händerna på våra makthavare. Om teorierna kan användas till att förbättra världen bör de inte förkastas. Men för de flesta av oss är klimatforskarnas rön om smältande polarisar, avverkad regnskog och stigande havsnivåer inte nog för att mana oss till handling. För det stora flertalet framstår rapporterna från IPCC som intet mer än en källa till ångest. På så vis påminner vår situation om den skeptikerna ville avhjälpa.Liksom för de konkurrerande skolorna var målet för skeptikernas verksamhet ataraxia, vilket på grekiska betyder sinnesro. Stoikerna sade sig uppnå målet genom att leva i enlighet med naturen och epikuréerna genom att hänge sig åt njutningar. Skeptikerna närmade sig problemet på ett annat sätt. Deras nyckel till sinnesro var insikten om att inget kan skada oss. Men det var inte sträckbänken, lejonen eller slavdrivarna de syftade på, utan de filosofiska problemen som håller oss vakna om nätterna och inte ger oss någon ro. Vad är sanning? Vad är skönhet? Vad händer när vi dör? Frågorna är nästintill omöjliga att besvara, vilket skeptikerna var de första att inse. Följaktligen vägrade de infoga sina kunskaper i system. De vägrade se samband och göra slutledningar. Man skulle kunna säga att de vägrade tänka.Sextus tid påminde på många sätt om vår egen. Filosofin, som hade börjat som ett självständigt sökande efter kunskap, hade stelnat i skolbildningar vars medlemmar ägnade större delen av sin tid åt att anklaga varandra för dumhet och hyckleri. I detta intellektuella klimat gjorde skeptikerna entré och retade gallfeber på sina konkurrenter genom att hävda att alla var lika goda kålsupare, och att det var samtalet i sig det var fel på.Skeptikerna var inga livsstilsradikaler. Det var deras lära som var avvikande. Själva levde de konventionella, tillbakadragna liv. Sextus arbetade som läkare, och författarskapet var en bisyssla han ägnade sig åt på fritiden.På samma sätt kan också vi dra oss tillbaka, och leva obesvärade av de hätska debatterna i vår samtid. I en tid där åsikter har upphöjts till dygd vore det inte mindre än ett uppror.Vincent Flink Amble-Naess

Episode Notes Dr. Christopher Beckwith Joins us to discuss his book “Greek Buddha: Pyrrho's Encounter with Early Buddhism” which examines links between very early Buddhism and the philosophy of Pyrrho, an ancient Greek philosopher who accompanied Alexander the Great on his Indian campaign. We also discuss the role of Scythians and Prince Gautama's lineage, Zoroastrianism and it's involvement in a rethink of the Buddha's rebellion against Brahmanism - and much much more that will leave you questioning everything you thought about this time period, and Buddhism itself as a philosophical movement. Book Links (Authors Page): https://www.amazon.com.au/Christopher-I-Beckwith/e/B001HPSGMG/ref=dp_byline_cont_pop_book_1 Christopher I. Beckwith is an American philologist and distinguished professor in the Department of Central Eurasian Studies at Indiana University Dr. Beckwith has taught at IU for 45 years, in which time he has developed 48 distinct courses. He is one of the most prolific and versatile researchers in the field of Central Eurasian studies. Beckwith is renowned for revolutionary scholarship that reshapes understanding of how, why and when the Central Eurasian steppe peoples from Eastern Europe to East Asia influenced the development of knowledge, religious beliefs and societies, not only within their homeland but in the neighboring peripheral cultures of Europe, the Middle East, South Asia, and East Asia as well. His research focuses on the history of ancient and medieval Central Eurasia and the cultures of the peripheral peoples, as well as the linguistics of Aramaic, Chinese, Japanese, Koguryo, Old Tibetan, Scythian, Turkic, and other languages. He has been named a MacArthur Fellow, a Guggenheim Fellow, a Fulbright-Hays Fellow, and a Japan Foundation fellow and has had numerous visiting appointments around the United States and the world. He has authored 12 books and over 60 articles. Time Stamps: 00:01 SOFCast introduction  02:35 Start of podcast 03:48 Chris Talks about how he came to study Central Asia in General 12:00 What inspired Chris to write Greek Buddha  14:00 Sextus Empiricus and Classical Skepticism - the Pyrrhonic connection  15:15 New Book “Scythian Empire” 21:00 Who was Pyrrho of Elis? 22:18 Was it only early Buddhism Pyrrho interacted with? 24:35 Similarities between Skepticism and Pyrrhonism? 30:45 Pragmata 31:55 Impermanence  42:50 The Significance of the Buddha - Pyrrho - Sextus Empiricus connection & problem of Criterion 48:50 A French connection? 54:00 Types of downstream Western Thought? 57:00 Which was first? Brahmanism before Buddhism ? Zoroastrianism before buddhism? 01:07:10 The Rig Veda was NOT Brahmanism 01:12:00 Flipping the Traditional Narrative 01:16:00 Talk about Chronology of the Buddhist Texts  01:20:00 Did Scythians have a class structure? 01:24:00 Persians and Scythians as Zoroastrian 01:32:00 Q&A Section: What are some of the still extant influences of Indo-Greek Buddhism on Buddhism Today? 01:43:00 Similarities between Daoism and Buddhism? Was Lao Tzu actually the Historical Buddha? 01:48:00 Book Coming Up: “The Scythian Empire” Book Links (Authors Page): https://www.amazon.com.au/Christopher-I-Beckwith/e/B001HPSGMG/ref=dp_byline_cont_pop_book_1 Support SOF Cast by contributing to their Tip Jar: https://tips.pinecast.com/jar/ship-of-fools-podcast Find out more at https://ship-of-fools-podcast.pinecast.co This podcast is powered by Pinecast.

Skepticism has woven its way throughout the entire history of philosophy... and yet as a formal school of thought it was (and still is) fairly niche and unknown. Why is that? What does Skepticism REALLY entail? And what can we learn from the remaining Skeptic works (of which there are so few) that can help us bridge our political divides? Richard Bett, Professor of Philosophy and Classics at Johns Hopkins University and author of How to Keep an Open Mind: An Ancient Guide to Thinking Like a Skeptic discusses the pros and cons of  Sextus' Empiricus, the only Greek Skeptic whose work has survived.We'll delve into how exactly can ancient skepticism help you attain tranquility by learning to suspend judgment.... You can find Professor's Bett's book, How to Keep an Open Mind: An Ancient Guide to Thinking Like a Skeptic, Here: https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691206042/how-to-keep-an-open-mind You can learn more about Classical Wisdom and Classical Wisdom Speaks here: https://classicalwisdom.com/Get your FREE Guide: How to Be Happy: An Ethical Guide to ancient Philosophy here: http://classicalwisdom.com/how-to-be-happy/ 

"Her şeyin göreceli olmadığını söyleyen biri bile bize her şeyin göreceli olduğunu onaylar." - Pyrrhonculuğun Esasları, Sextus Empiricus. Arda Yaman kendi tefekkür hücresinde, kendi gündemleriyle hesaplaşıyor.

The guys breakdown Fevers team.

Induktion är metoden att ur enskilda exempel sluta sig till vad som gäller i allmänhet. Inom vetenskaperna är den historiskt omstridd - men i våra liv styr den med järnhand. Det menar författaren Helena Granström. ESSÄ: Detta är en text där skribenten reflekterar över ett ämne eller ett verk. Åsikter som uttrycks är skribentens egna. Människans förkärlek för induktion är, har det sagts, jämförbar med hennes förkärlek för kopulation: Den ligger helt enkelt i hennes natur. Att utifrån ett eller flera enskilda fall dra slutsatser om det allmänna fallet är ett sätt att förhålla sig till världen som tycks svårt att separera från den mänskliga tanken i stort. Att denna tendens skulle vara alltigenom positiv är tveksamt: antagligen har den en inte försumbar del i framgången för såväl kvasivetenskapliga förklaringsmodeller som främlingsfientlighet och populistisk manipulation. Å andra sidan vore världen i det närmaste ogripbar om vi inte i någon grad kunde luta oss mot övertygelsen att det faktum att solen hittills gått upp varje morgon innebär att den kommer att göra det imorgon också. Dessutom är det induktiva förhållningssättet en förutsättning för all språklig begreppsbildning: Vad betyder ordet "hund" om jag utifrån de hundar jag mött inte kan tillåta mig att dra några som helst slutsatser om dem jag kommer att möta i framtiden? Men trots det bör vi nog anstränga oss för att hålla den induktiva metodens grundläggande tillkortakommande i minnet: Bara för att vi har tusen exempel på någonting visst, betyder det inte att den ettusenförsta observationen inte kan erbjuda ett motexempel. Det är för övrigt just detta som gör att det enbart är matematiken som kan bevisa påståenden, medan allt vetenskapen kan göra är att troliggöra dem; ett förhållande som tyvärr alltför ofta glöms bort. Trots ett klanderfritt resonemang visade sig kalkonens slutsats felaktig och fatalt så. Det kanske allra tydligaste åskådliggörandet av induktionens svagheter härrör från den brittiske 1900-talsfilosofen Bertrand Russell, som frammanar bilden av en tam kalkon som i god induktiv ordning insamlar en mängd observationer till stöd för tesen: "Jag får alltid mat klockan nio". Kalkonen prövar sitt antagande kalla dagar, regniga dagar, blåsiga dagar, heta dagar: Det stämmer ofelbart. Ändå blir han en dag inte matad, utan får halsen avhuggen. Trots ett klanderfritt resonemang visade sig kalkonens slutsats felaktig och fatalt så. Men egentligen behöver vi väl inte gå längre än till våra egna liv för att inse samma sak: Den gedigna empiri som ger vid handen att varje andetag vi tar kommer att följas av ett nästa, tycks i alla avseenden tillförlitlig ända till den dag då vi tar vårt sista. En person som ägnade det induktiva tillvägagångssättet djup uppmärksamhet var 1600-talstänkaren Francis Bacon, som apropå fjäderfän för övrigt påstås ha mött sin död då han under en vagnfärd i snöstorm fick syn på en höna, och plötsligt bestämde sig för att testa hypotesen "hönskött kan bevaras färskt genom att hönan späckas med snö efter slakt"; han störtade utan vidare eftertanke ut i snön för att påbörja försöket, och avled en kort tid därefter i lunginflammation. Kanske skulle man därmed kunna kalla honom den vetenskapliga metodens första dödsoffer, med tanke på att han med sina arbeten anses ha lagt grunden till det som idag gäller för empirisk vetenskap. Bland annat i skriften Novum Organum en titel som på svenska lyder någonting i stil med "ny metod" utgiven för första gången 1620, och sedan vintern 2021 tillgänglig i svensk översättning. Bacon slår här ett slag för ett djupgående och systematiskt studium av de sinnliga fenomenen som väg till sann kunskap om världen; erfarenheten är, skriver Bacon, "den överlägset bästa bevisföringen", till skillnad från logiken som snarare syftar till att "underordna världen och göra den till slav under människans tankar". Men den induktion som Bacon förespråkar är av ett särskilt slag; en som utgår inte enbart från insamlad erfarenhet, utan snarare från metodisk granskning av densamma. Tabeller, scheman och jämförelser mellan olika typfall är en förutsättning, liksom det numera helt centrala vetenskapliga greppet att utifrån hypoteserna formulera nya förutsägelser och sedan testa dem. Bacons induktion är, med andra ord, en högst sofistikerad sådan, medan den induktion som bygger på enkel uppräkning enligt filosofen är att betrakta som "ett barnsligt påfund". Ändå lyckas Bacon knappast undgå den djupgående kritik som genom historien har riktats mot den induktiva metoden som idé. Redan på 100-talet konstaterade den grekiske filosofen Sextus Empiricus att en induktiv slutsats antingen måste bygga på alla möjliga fall, vilket är omöjligt eftersom de är oändligt många eller på bara en del av dem, vilket innebär att den mycket väl kan vara felaktig. I båda fallen tycks induktionen ha problem. Det är en kritik som senare skulle fördjupas av tänkare som David Hume, som menade att det grundantagande som all induktion bygger på nämligen att naturen är regelbunden i sig är omotiverat, och också det förutsätter ett induktivt resonemang. Vi tror på induktion eftersom naturen hittills har visat sig vara regelbunden, så att induktion ger vid handen att den ska fortsätta vara det ett cirkelresonemang. Och i denna cirkel tycks vi alltså ohjälpligt inskrivna, som om den godtrogna övertygelsen om alltings förutsägbarhet vore en förutsättning för att man ska orka med att vara människa vilket det kanske också är. Och det kunde väl, tänker jag, vara gott så om det inte vore för en obehaglig känsla av att det finns en djupare och mer subtil konsekvens av människans induktiva faiblesse, som inte har att göra med hennes tendens att förvänta sig upprepning, utan snarare med hennes tendens att bidra till att skapa den. För inte bara är människan benägen att iaktta regelbundenhet omkring sig, även när ingen sådan finns hon tycks också vara benägen att infoga sig själv i den, om än ofta på omedveten väg. Vi tycks helt enkelt oerhört benägna att begå samma misstag om och om igen. Skulle inte till exempel det freudianska upprepningstvånget kunna ses som ett högst oroande uttryck för induktionens psykologi? Som om den förmåga till mönsterigenkänning som vi så gärna framhåller som ett av den mänskliga intelligensens främsta företräden på samma gång utgjorde en tydlig begränsning för vår fria vilja, genom att med kraft driva våra handlingar mot ett mönster att känna igen, utan hänsyn till hur destruktivt detta mönster kan tänkas vara. Freud själv erbjuder i essän "Bortom lustprincipen" några dystra exempel: "Män för vilka varje vänskapsförhållande slutar med att vännen förråder dem, andra som ett upprepat, obestämt antal gånger utnämner en annan person till stor auktoritet för sig själv, för att sedan efter lämplig tid själv störta denna auktoritet och ersätta den med en ny; älskande vars kärleksfulla förhållande till kvinnor varje gång genomgår samma stadier och leder till samma slut och så vidare". Man kan hur som helst konstatera att tillvaron utifrån det mänskliga livets perspektiv inte sällan framstår som just så fast bestämd, repetitiv och förutsägbar som vårt i princip grundlösa induktiva antagande vill göra gällande; vi tycks helt enkelt oerhört benägna att begå samma misstag om och om igen. Och för den som just tröttnat på sin tionde pojkvän, återigen avfärdats som påfrestande av en nära vän, eller ännu en gång inlett en relation med någon som är våldsam, är tanken på att vi själva skulle visa oss vara Russells kalkon, vars regelbundna tillvaro en dag plötsligt bryts av någonting radikalt nytt, knappast det värsta skräckscenariot. Tvärtom: Kanske är det i själva verket det bästa vi har att hoppas på. Helena Granström

În episodul de astăzi vorbim despre scepticismul antic, filosofia construită în jurul ideii de suspensie a judecății (epoche). Vorbim despre regresul ad infinitum și  Sextus Empiricus, despre benzina cu plumb și Emil Cioran, despre avioane părăsite și Slavoj Zizek. Puteți susțineți acest podcast pe Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/octavpopa

Today’s episode is an excerpt from Chapter 2 of Richard Bett’s How to Keep an Open Mind: An Ancient Guide to Thinking Like a Skeptic published by Princeton University Press. How to Keep an Open Mind is a part of the Ancient Wisdom for Modern Readers series and is a collection of Sextus Empiricus’ writings about how ancient skepticism can help you attain tranquility by learning to suspend judgment.This episode is brought to you by GoMacro. Go Macro is a family-owned maker of some of the finest protein bars around. They're vegan, non-GMO, and they come in a bunch of delicious flavors. Visit gomacro.com and use promo code STOIC for 30% off your order plus free shipping on all orders over $50.This episode is brought to you by Blinkist, the app that gets you fifteen-minute summaries of the best nonfiction books out there. Blinkist lets you get the topline information and the most important points from the most important nonfiction books out there, whether it’s Ryan’s own The Daily Stoic, Yuval Harari’s Sapiens, and more. Go to blinkist.com/stoic, try it free for 7 days, and save 25% off your new subscription, too.***If you enjoyed this week’s podcast, we’d love for you to leave a review on Apple Podcasts. It helps with our visibility, and the more people listen to the podcast, the more we can invest into it and make it even better.Sign up for the Daily Stoic email: http://DailyStoic.com/signupFollow @DailyStoic:Twitter: https://twitter.com/dailystoicInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/dailystoic/Facebook: http://facebook.com/dailystoicYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/dailystoicTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@daily_stoic

Following the Renaissance, Europe had an explosion of science. The works of the Greeks had been lost during the Dark Ages while civilizations caught up to the technical progress. Or so we were taught in school. Previously, we looked at the contributions during the Golden Age of the Islamic Empires and the Renaissance when that science returned to Europe following the Holy Wars. The great thinkers from the Renaissance pushed boundaries and opened minds. But the revolution coming after them would change the very way we thought of the world. It was a revolution based in science and empirical thought, lasting from the middle of the 1500s to late in the 1600s.  There are three main aspects I'd like to focus on in terms of taking all the knowledge of the world from that point and preparing it to give humans enlightenment, what we call the age after the Scientific Revolution. These are new ways of reasoning and thinking, specialization, and rigor. Let's start with rigor. My cat jumps on the stove and burns herself. She doesn't do it again. My dog gets too playful with the cat and gets smacked. Both then avoid doing those things in the future. Early humans learn that we can forage certain plants and then realize we can take those plants to another place and have them grow. And then we realize they grow best when planted at certain times of the year. And watching the stars can provide guidance on when to do so. This evolved over generations of trial and error.  Yet we believed those stars revolved around the earth for much of our existence. Even after designing orreries and mapping the heavens, we still hung on to this belief until Copernicus. His 1543 work “On The Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres” marks the beginning of the Scientific Revolution. Here, he almost heretically claimed that the stars in fact revolved around the sun, as did the Earth.  This wasn't exactly new. Aristarchus had theorized this heliocentric model in Ancient Greece. Ptolemy had disagreed in Almagest, where he provided tables to compute location and dates using the stars. Tables that had taken rigor to produce. And that Ptolemaic system came to be taken for granted. It worked fine.  The difference was, Copernicus had newer technology. He had newer optics, thousands more years of recorded data (some of which was contributed by philosophers during the golden age of Islamic science), the texts of ancient astronomers, and newer ecliptical tables and techniques with which to derive them.  Copernicus didn't accept what he was taught but instead looked to prove or disprove it with mathematical rigor. The printing press came along in 1440 and 100 years later, Luther was lambasting the church, Columbus discovered the New World, and the printing press helped disseminate information in a way that was less controllable by governments and religious institutions who at times felt threatened by that information. For example, Outlines of Pyrrhonism from first century Sextus Empiricus was printed in 1562, adding skepticism to the growing European thought. In other words, human computers were becoming more sentient and needed more input.  We couldn't trust what the ancients were passing down and the doctrine of the church was outdated. Others began to ask questions.  Johannes Keppler published Mysterium Cosmographicum in 1596, in defense of Copernicus. He would go on to study math, such as the relationship between math and music, and the relationship between math and the weather. And in 1604 published Astronomiae Pars Optica, where he proposed a new method to measure eclipses of the moon. He would become the imperial mathematician to Emperor Rudolf II, where he could work with other court scholars. He worked on optical theory and wrote Astronomiae Pars Optica, or The Optical Part of Astronomy. He published numerous other works that pushed astronomy, optics, and math forward. His Epitome of Copernican Astronomy would go further than Copernicus, assigning ellipses to the movements of celestial bodies and while it didn't catch on immediately, his inductive reasoning and the rigor that followed, was enough to have him conversing with Galileo.  Galileo furthered the work of Copernicus and Kepler. He picked up a telescope in 1609 and in his lifetime saw magnification go from 3 to 30 times. This allowed him to map Jupiter's moons, proving the orbits of other celestial bodies. He identified sunspots. He observed the strength of motions and developed formulas for inertia and parabolic trajectories.  We were moving from deductive reasoning, or starting our scientific inquiry with a theory - to inductive reasoning, or creating theories based on observation. Galileos observations expanded our knowledge of Venus, the moon, and the tides. He helped to transform how we thought, despite ending up in an Inquisition over his findings. The growing quantity and types of systematic experimentation represented a shift in values. Emiricism, observing evidence for yourself, and the review of peers - whether they disagreed or not. These methods were being taught in growing schools but also in salons and coffee houses and, as was done in Athens, in paid lectures. Sir Francis Bacon argued about only basing scientific knowledge on inductive reasoning. We now call this the Baconian Method, which he wrote about in 1620 when he published his book, New method, or Novum Organum in latin. This was the formalization of eliminative induction. He was building on if not replacing the inductive-deductive method  in Aristotle's Organon. Bacon was the Attorney General of England and actually wrote Novum while sitting as the Lord Chancellor of England, who presides over the House of Lords and also is the highest judge, or was before Tony Blair.  Bacon's method built on ancient works from not only Aristotle but also Al-Biruni, al-Haytham, and many others. And has influenced generations of scientists, like John Locke.  René Descartes helped lay the further framework for rationalism, coining the term “I think therefore I am.” He became by many accounts the father of modern Western Philosophy and asked what can we be certain of, or what is true? This helped him rethink various works and develop Cartesian geometry. Yup, he was the one who developed standard notation in 1637, a thought process that would go on to impact many other great thinkers for generations - especially with the development of calculus. As with many other great natural scientists or natural philosophers of the age, he also wrote on the theory of music, anatomy, and some of his works could be considered a protopsychology.  Another method that developed in the era was empiricism, which John Locke proposed in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding in 1689. George Berkeley, Thomas Hobbes, and David Hume would join that movement and develop a new basis for human knowledge in that empirical tradition that the only true knowledge accessible to our minds was that based on experience. Optics and simple machines had been studied and known of since antiquity. But tools that deepened the understating of sciences began to emerge during this time. We got the steam digester, new forms of telescopes, vacuum pumps, the mercury barometer. And, most importantly for this body of work - we got the mechanical calculator.  Robert Boyle was influenced by Galileo, Bacon, and others. He gave us Boyle's Law, explaining how the pressure of gas increases as the volume of a contain holding the gas decreases. He built air pumps. He investigated how freezing water expands, he experimented with crystals. He experimented with magnetism, early forms of electricity. He published the Skeptical Chymist in 1660 and another couple of dozen books. Before him, we had alchemy and after him, we had chemistry. One of his students was Robert Hooke. Hooke. Hooke defined the law of elasticity, He experimented with everything. He made music tones from brass cogs that had teeth cut in specific proportions. This is storing data on a disk, in a way. Hooke coined the term cell. He studied gravitation in Micrographia, published in 1665.  And Hooke argued, conversed, and exchanged letters at great length with Sir Isaac Newton, one of the greatest scientific minds of all time. He gave the first theory on the speed of sound, Newtonian mechanics, the binomials series. He also gave us Newton's Rules for Science which are as follows: We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. Therefore to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes. The qualities of bodies, which admit neither intension nor remission of degrees, and which are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever. In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions collected by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, until such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions These appeared in Principia, which gave us the laws of motion and a mathematical description of gravity leading to universal gravitation. Newton never did find the secret to the Philosopher's Stone while working on it, although he did become the Master of the Royal Mint at a pivotal time of recoining, and so who knows. But he developed the first reflecting telescope and made observations about prisms that led to his book Optics in 1704. And ever since he and Leibniz developed calculus, high school and college students alike have despised him.  Leibniz also did a lot of work on calculus but was a great philosopher as well. His work on logic  All our ideas are compounded from a very small number of simple ideas, which form the alphabet of human thought. Complex ideas proceed from these simple ideas by a uniform and symmetrical combination, analogous to arithmetical multiplication. This would ultimately lead to the algebra of concepts and after a century and a half of great mathematicians and logicians would result in Boolean algebra, the zero and one foundations of computing, once Claude Shannon gave us information theory a century after that.  Blaise Pascal was another of these philosopher mathematician physicists who also happened to dabble in inventing. I saved him for last because he didn't just do work on probability theory, do important early work on vacuums, give us Pascal's Triangle for binomial coefficients, and invent the hydraulic press. Nope. He also developed Pascal's Calculator, an early mechanical calculator that is the first known to have worked. He didn't build it to do much, just help with the tax collecting work he was doing for his family.  The device could easily add and subtract two numbers and then loop through those tasks in order to do rudimentary multiplication and division. He would only build about 50, but the Pascaline as it came to be known was an important step in the history of computing. And that Leibniz guy, he invented the Leibniz wheels to make the multiplication automatic rather than just looping through addition steps. It wouldn't be until 1851 that the Arithmometer made a real commercial go at mechanical calculators in a larger and more business like way. While Tomas, the inventor of that device is best known for his work on the calculator today, his real legacy is the 1,000 families who get their income from the insurance company he founded, which is still in business as GAN Assurances, and the countless families who have worked there or used their services.  That brings us to the next point about specializations. Since the Egyptians and Greeks we've known that the more specialists we had in fields, the more discoveries they made. Many of these were philosophers or scientists. They studied the stars and optics and motions and mathematics and geometry for thousands of years, and an increasingly large amount of information was available to generations that followed starting with the written words first being committed to clay tablets in Mesopotamia. The body of knowledge had grown to the point where one could study a branch of science, such as mathematics, physics, astronomy, biology, and chemistry for their entire lives - improving each field in their own way. Every few generations, this transformed societal views about nature. We also increased our study of anatomy, with an increase in or return to the dissection of human corpses, emerging from the time when that was not allowed. And these specialties began to diverge into their own fields in the next generations. There was certainly still collaboration, and in fact the new discoveries only helped to make science more popular than ever. Given the increased popularity, there was more work done, more theories to prove or disprove, more scholarly writings, which were then given to more and more people through innovations to the printing press, and a more and more literate people. Seventeenth century scientists and philosophers were able to collaborate with members of the mathematical and astronomical communities to effect advances in all fields. All of this rapid change in science since the end of the Renaissance created a groundswell of interest in new ways to learn about findings and who was doing what. There was a Republic of Letters, or a community of intellectuals spread across Europe and America. These informal networks sprang up and spread information that might have been considered heretical before transmitted through secret societies of intellectuals and through encrypted letters. And they fostered friendships, like in the early days of computer science.  There were groups meeting in coffee houses and salons. The Royal Society of London sprang up in 1600. Then the British Royal Society was founded in 1660. They started a publication called Philosophical Transactions in 1665. There are over 8,000 members of the society, which runs to this day with fellows of the society including people like Robert Hooke and fellows would include Newton, Darwin, Faraday, Einstein, Francis Crick, Turing, Tim Berners-Lee, Elon Musk, and Stephen Hawking. And this inspired Colbert to establish the French Academy of Sciences in 1666. They swapped papers, read one another's works, and that peer review would evolve into the journals and institutions we have today. There are so many more than the ones mentioned in this episode. Great thinkers like Otto von Guericke, Otto Brunfels, Giordano Bruno, Leonard Fuchs, Tycho Brahe, Samuel Hartlib, William Harvey, Marcello Malpighi, John Napier, Edme Mariotte, Santorio Santorio, Simon Stevin, Franciscus Sylvius, John Baptist van Helmont, Andreas Vesalius, Evangelista Torricelli, Francois Viete, John Wallis, and the list goes on.  Now that scientific communities were finally beyond where the Greeks had left off like with Plato's Academy and the letters sent by ancient Greeks. The scientific societies had emerged similarly, centuries later. But the empires had more people and resources and traditions of science to build on.  This massive jump in learning then prepared us for a period we now call the Enlightenment, which then opened minds and humanity was ready to accept a new level of Science in the Age of Enlightenment. The books, essays, society periodicals, universities, discoveries, and inventions are often lost in the classroom where the focus can be about the wars and revolutions they often inspired. But those who emerged in the Scientific Revolution acted as guides for the Enlightenment philosophers, scientists, engineers, and thinkers that would come next. But we'll have to pick that back up in the next episode!

As a matter of basic metaphysics, we classify individuals in terms of their relations to other things – for example, a parent is a parent of someone, a larger object is larger than a smaller object. The nature of relativity – the question of how things relate to other things – is a topic that winds its way through the history of philosophy to the present day. In Ancient Relativity: Plato, Aristotle, Stoics and Skeptics (Oxford University Press, 2020), Matthew Duncombe considers ancient views of relativity from Plato, Aristotle, the Skeptics (particularly Simplicius), and the Stoics (particularly Sextus Empiricus). Duncombe, an assistant professor of philosophy at the University of Nottingham, defends the view that these thinkers shared a common basic position that he calls “constitutive relativity” – the idea that relativity is a matter of the relative being a certain way, rather than having a certain predicate true of it or having a certain feature. He argues that this reading is in the background in a number of arguments in these thinkers, including Parmenides' main objection to Plato's Theory of the Forms, and that it comes into its own as a key element of the Skeptics' opposition to dogmatic belief. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

As a matter of basic metaphysics, we classify individuals in terms of their relations to other things – for example, a parent is a parent of someone, a larger object is larger than a smaller object. The nature of relativity – the question of how things relate to other things – is a topic that winds its way through the history of philosophy to the present day. In Ancient Relativity: Plato, Aristotle, Stoics and Skeptics (Oxford University Press, 2020), Matthew Duncombe considers ancient views of relativity from Plato, Aristotle, the Skeptics (particularly Simplicius), and the Stoics (particularly Sextus Empiricus). Duncombe, an assistant professor of philosophy at the University of Nottingham, defends the view that these thinkers shared a common basic position that he calls “constitutive relativity” – the idea that relativity is a matter of the relative being a certain way, rather than having a certain predicate true of it or having a certain feature. He argues that this reading is in the background in a number of arguments in these thinkers, including Parmenides' main objection to Plato's Theory of the Forms, and that it comes into its own as a key element of the Skeptics' opposition to dogmatic belief. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

As a matter of basic metaphysics, we classify individuals in terms of their relations to other things – for example, a parent is a parent of someone, a larger object is larger than a smaller object. The nature of relativity – the question of how things relate to other things – is a topic that winds its way through the history of philosophy to the present day. In Ancient Relativity: Plato, Aristotle, Stoics and Skeptics (Oxford University Press, 2020), Matthew Duncombe considers ancient views of relativity from Plato, Aristotle, the Skeptics (particularly Simplicius), and the Stoics (particularly Sextus Empiricus). Duncombe, an assistant professor of philosophy at the University of Nottingham, defends the view that these thinkers shared a common basic position that he calls “constitutive relativity” – the idea that relativity is a matter of the relative being a certain way, rather than having a certain predicate true of it or having a certain feature. He argues that this reading is in the background in a number of arguments in these thinkers, including Parmenides' main objection to Plato's Theory of the Forms, and that it comes into its own as a key element of the Skeptics' opposition to dogmatic belief. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

As a matter of basic metaphysics, we classify individuals in terms of their relations to other things – for example, a parent is a parent of someone, a larger object is larger than a smaller object. The nature of relativity – the question of how things relate to other things – is a topic that winds its way through the history of philosophy to the present day. In Ancient Relativity: Plato, Aristotle, Stoics and Skeptics (Oxford University Press, 2020), Matthew Duncombe considers ancient views of relativity from Plato, Aristotle, the Skeptics (particularly Simplicius), and the Stoics (particularly Sextus Empiricus). Duncombe, an assistant professor of philosophy at the University of Nottingham, defends the view that these thinkers shared a common basic position that he calls “constitutive relativity” – the idea that relativity is a matter of the relative being a certain way, rather than having a certain predicate true of it or having a certain feature. He argues that this reading is in the background in a number of arguments in these thinkers, including Parmenides' main objection to Plato's Theory of the Forms, and that it comes into its own as a key element of the Skeptics' opposition to dogmatic belief.

As a matter of basic metaphysics, we classify individuals in terms of their relations to other things – for example, a parent is a parent of someone, a larger object is larger than a smaller object. The nature of relativity – the question of how things relate to other things – is a topic that winds its way through the history of philosophy to the present day. In Ancient Relativity: Plato, Aristotle, Stoics and Skeptics (Oxford University Press, 2020), Matthew Duncombe considers ancient views of relativity from Plato, Aristotle, the Skeptics (particularly Simplicius), and the Stoics (particularly Sextus Empiricus). Duncombe, an assistant professor of philosophy at the University of Nottingham, defends the view that these thinkers shared a common basic position that he calls “constitutive relativity” – the idea that relativity is a matter of the relative being a certain way, rather than having a certain predicate true of it or having a certain feature. He argues that this reading is in the background in a number of arguments in these thinkers, including Parmenides’ main objection to Plato’s Theory of the Forms, and that it comes into its own as a key element of the Skeptics’ opposition to dogmatic belief. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

As a matter of basic metaphysics, we classify individuals in terms of their relations to other things – for example, a parent is a parent of someone, a larger object is larger than a smaller object. The nature of relativity – the question of how things relate to other things – is a topic that winds its way through the history of philosophy to the present day. In Ancient Relativity: Plato, Aristotle, Stoics and Skeptics (Oxford University Press, 2020), Matthew Duncombe considers ancient views of relativity from Plato, Aristotle, the Skeptics (particularly Simplicius), and the Stoics (particularly Sextus Empiricus). Duncombe, an assistant professor of philosophy at the University of Nottingham, defends the view that these thinkers shared a common basic position that he calls “constitutive relativity” – the idea that relativity is a matter of the relative being a certain way, rather than having a certain predicate true of it or having a certain feature. He argues that this reading is in the background in a number of arguments in these thinkers, including Parmenides’ main objection to Plato’s Theory of the Forms, and that it comes into its own as a key element of the Skeptics’ opposition to dogmatic belief. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

As a matter of basic metaphysics, we classify individuals in terms of their relations to other things – for example, a parent is a parent of someone, a larger object is larger than a smaller object. The nature of relativity – the question of how things relate to other things – is a topic that winds its way through the history of philosophy to the present day. In Ancient Relativity: Plato, Aristotle, Stoics and Skeptics (Oxford University Press, 2020), Matthew Duncombe considers ancient views of relativity from Plato, Aristotle, the Skeptics (particularly Simplicius), and the Stoics (particularly Sextus Empiricus). Duncombe, an assistant professor of philosophy at the University of Nottingham, defends the view that these thinkers shared a common basic position that he calls “constitutive relativity” – the idea that relativity is a matter of the relative being a certain way, rather than having a certain predicate true of it or having a certain feature. He argues that this reading is in the background in a number of arguments in these thinkers, including Parmenides’ main objection to Plato’s Theory of the Forms, and that it comes into its own as a key element of the Skeptics’ opposition to dogmatic belief. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The rediscovery of Epicurus, Lucretius, and Sextus Empiricus spreads challenging ideas about chance, atomism, and skepticism.

Bu programda Septikler okulunun son halkasını konuştuk. Programda Ainesidemos ve Sextus Empiricus isimli filozoflara değindik. Program notlarına ulaşmak için tıklayınız.

En librairie le 11 septembre 2019 et sur https://www.lesbelleslettres.com/livre/4028-contre-les-logiciens. Sextus Empiricus (IIe-IIIe s. ap. J.-C.) est le dernier philosophe sceptique de l'Antiquité et le seul dont l'oeuvre soit en grande partie conservée.

This is a conversation with a final-year student in Philosophy. Aine graduated from Queen's University Belfast in the summer of 2019, and like many students she used her final year of studies to work on an extended independent research project. Dissertation students write about a philosophical topic of their own devising, working alongside individual members of faculty who help to steer their project. Aine worked with my colleage Roger Clarke (http://www.rogerclarke.org/) on an epistemology project to do with ancient skepticism – the philosopher Sextus Empiricus tells us about the Pyhrrohnic skeptics, who thought that there's something desirable about freeing oneself from the tyranny of 'dogmatic' beliefs and making a concerted effort to free oneself of any knowledge. Here are some things you might like to look up to find out more about Aine's topic: * Peter Adamson's excellent podcast 'The History of Philosophy Without Any Gaps' has an episode dedicated to Pyrhho and the Skeptics (https://historyofphilosophy.net/pyrrho), and another one dedicated to Sextus Empiricus (https://historyofphilosophy.net/sextus) and his approach to belief. * Katja Maria Vogt (https://katjavogt.com/) has a number of excellent introductions to Hellenistic skepticism on her webpage here (https://katjavogt.com/introductions/). * She's also the author of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's entry to Ancient Skepticism, which you can find here (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/skepticism-ancient/). Aine's dissertation is exploring the question of whether a Pyrhhonic skeptic is 'practical', whether they can 'act normally' or 'live their skepticism', and for this specific question she recommends the following papers: * Burnyeat, Myles F (1979) 'Can the Sceptic Live His Scepticism?' From Schofield Malcolm & Burnyeat M.F. & Jonathan Barnes (ed.), Doubt and Dogmatism: Studies in Hellenistic Epistemology. (1979) Oxford: OUP. (Google Books link (https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Doubt_and_Dogmatism.html?id=tohKmwEACAAJ)) * Vogt, Katja Maria (2010) Scepticism and Action. From Bett, Richard (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Ancient Scepticism. (2010) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. * Wieland, Jan Willem. ‘Can Pyrrhonists act normally?’ Philosophical Explorations 15 (3), pp. 277-289. (Seems to be available online here (http://www.slavernijvoetafdruk.nl/wp-content/uploads/apraxia.pdf)) Please get in touch to send any thoughts, responses, ideas, reactions, feedback or ideas about this episode or any of the others, it's great to hear from you, particularly if you want to say encouraging things. To drop me a line you can just head over to the contact (https://www.generousquestions.co.uk/contact) page. The theme music is from li_serios05 (https://store.broken20.com/album/li-series-05-jack-on-piano) by TVO on Broken20 records (https://store.broken20.com/) under Creative Commons license BY-NC-SA (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/). A transcript of this conversation is available from the episode website, just go to this episode and click on the button that says 'transcript'. The transcripts for each episode have been beautifully prepared by Becci. Thanks Becci!

Ben explains sextus empiricus to Pat.

Ben explains sextus empiricus to Pat.

What if I were to tell you that everything you know is wrong? What if I told you that the story you know is a system of control made up by people who want to keep you from the one real truth: The Matrix lacks a clear message on the problem of skepticism. On its own, it's kind of a confused mess of messaging. We dive into this issue, starting with a discussion of Plato's allegory of the cave and moving through Sextus Empiricus into the modern epistemic crisis we face. Can I justify forcing Thomas to watch the second movie? You'll have to tune in to find out. Plato's Allegory of the Cave: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_Cave  Sextus's 5 modes:  https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sextus-empiricus/#FivModI164  Support us at Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/0G  Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/0gPhilosophy Join our Facebook discussion group (make sure to answer the questions to join): https://www.facebook.com/groups/985828008244018/  Email us at: philosophersinspace@gmail.com Sibling shows: Serious Inquiries Only: https://seriouspod.com/ Opening Arguments: https://openargs.com/  Embrace the Void: https://voidpod.com/ Recent appearances: Aaron was on Inciting Incidents podcast with GW http://incitingincident.libsyn.com/163-people-yell-at-news-through-the-void and keep an ear out for Thomas on an upcoming Cog Dis episode. 

Feynman once said: “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.” Two philosophers named Sextus Empiricus & Pyrrhon from ancient Greece would have probably agreed.

More at http://philosophytalk.org/shows/philosophy-therapy. From Plato and Sextus Empiricus to Wittgenstein, many important thinkers have thought of philosophy as a type of therapy. By looking at our way of life through a philosophical lens, we can achieve a particular kind of understanding that can bring us peace of mind. But can philosophy really help those who experience mental anguish? Don’t we have shrinks and medication for that? If philosophy is more likely to raise more questions than it offers answers, how could it help us overcome suffering? What would it mean for an emotional or psychological problem to have a philosophical cure? John and Ken seek solace with David Konstan from NYU, author of "The Emotions of the Ancient Greeks: Studies in Aristotle and Classical Literature."

We look for the resources from sages past to see how they figured out how to live at peace and find virtue in our cultural wasteland.  A bit of ancient philosophy like Taoism and a discussion of Seneca, Sextus Empiricus, Luther, and Calvin.

On "Outlines of Pyrrhonism" from 200 C.E. Can you live while suspending judgment about all non-everyday matters? WIth guest Jessica Berry.

Sextus Empiricus pushes skepticism to its limits with his uncompromising Pyrrhonism

Notes, References, and Links for further study: Use the donation buttons at the bottom of these notes, or on the sidebar of this site, or the sidebar of Tragedy and Hope dot com,  for “The Ultimate History Lesson: A Weekend with John Taylor Gatto” multi-DVD interview project, currently in post-production. With over 5 hours of interview footage, this is a collection of education which is invaluable. If you donate $50 or more towards the completion of this project, you will receive the entire DVD set; as our way of saying Thanks! Your invitation to the Tragedy and Hope online critical thinking community Peace Revolution Podcast's primary hosting site (2009-2011) Peace Revolution Podcast's backup hosting site (2006-2011, also includes the 9/11 Synchronicity Podcast episodes, starting at the bottom of the page) Tragedy and Hope dot com (all of our media productions, free to the public) On the top menu, there is a “Trivium” selection, which includes the Brain model discussed in Peace Revolution episodes. “A Peaceful Solution” by Willie Nelson w/thanks to the Willie Nelson Peace Research Institute T&H Partner Podcasts: Media Monarchy, Corbett Report, Gnostic Media, & Remedy Radio www.StartPage.com (It uses Google's search algorithm, but doesn't collect your private info and search history) StartPage search engine Firefox add-on The Brain (mind mapping software to organize your research) download for FREE The free version works for all functions except web publication (Video) Carpe Diem! / Dead Poets' Society (on YouTube) (Video) Reel Wisdom: Lessons from 40 films in 7 minutes (on YouTube) (Video) Consuming Kids (on YouTube) (Video) Corporations in the Classroom (on YouTube) (Video) The Corporation (on YouTube) Dr. Robert Hare's diagnostic checklist applied to Corporations (Video) Moment of Clarity with Lee Camp (on Lee Camp dot net) (Video) Ron Paul discussing Carroll Quigley's “Tragedy and Hope” (on YouTube) (Audio) James Corbett interviews Richard Grove (on Corbett Report dot com) (Audio) from Consuming Kids (see above) (Audio) from Corporations in the Classroom (see above) List of Oldest Schools in the United Kingdom (on Wikipedia) Definition of Epistemology (on Wikipedia) Solipsism (on Wikipedia) “Solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist. The term comes from Latin solus (alone) and ipse (self). Solipsism as an epistemological position holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure. The external world and other minds cannot be known, and might not exist outside the mind. As a metaphysical position, solipsism goes further to the conclusion that the world and other minds do not exist. Although the number of individuals sincerely espousing solipsism has been small, it is not uncommon for one philosopher to accuse another's arguments of entailing solipsism as an unwanted consequence, in a kind of reductio ad absurdum. In the history of philosophy, solipsism has also served as a skeptical hypothesis.” Solipsism is first recorded with the Greek presocratic sophist, Gorgias (c. 483–375 BC) who is quoted by the Roman skeptic Sextus Empiricus as having stated: Nothing exists; Even if something exists, nothing can be known about it; and Even if something could be known about it, knowledge about it can't be communicated to others. Much of the point of the Sophists was to show that "objective" knowledge was a literal impossibility. (See also comments credited to Protagoras of Abdera). (Book) Principles of Secondary Education (1918) by Alexander Inglis (on Archive.org) See pages: 206; Chapter X, 340-380 Propaedeutic Function (on Wikipedia) Prussian Ph.D. System / Wilhelm Wundt (on Wikipedia) (Book) The Leipzig Connection: Basics in Education by Paolo Lionni (on Amazon.com) Prussian influence in Japan Meiji Constitution 1890 (on Wikipedia) “After the Meiji Restoration in 1868, it provided for a form of constitutional monarchy based on the Prussian model, in which the Emperor of Japan was an active ruler and wielded considerable political power (over foreign policy and diplomacy) …” (Book) Principles of Psychology by William James (1890) (Book) Morals and Dogma of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry by Albert Pike (1871) (Book) The Impact of Science on Society by Bertrand Russell (1953) “It is to be expected that advances in physiology and psychology will give governments much more control over individual mentality than they now have even in totalitarian countries. Fichte laid it down that education should aim at destroying free will, so that, after pupils have left school, they shall be incapable, throughout the rest of their lives, of thinking or acting otherwise than as their schoolmasters would have wished. But in his day this was an unattainable ideal: what he regarded as the best system in existence produced Karl Marx. In future such failures are not likely to occur where there is dictatorship. Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible. Even if all are miserable, all will believe themselves happy, because the government will tell them that they are so.” – page 61 of the 1953 first edition (Document) Kindergarten as the first Initiation level of the Illuminati (from Estonian Wikipedia and Translated) “Illuminati seem borrowed from modern mandrivabamüürluse kujundlikkusest blossoming, with levels of breeding like rabbits . They had three separate sets of steps, and each set of four or five steps:  KINDERGARTEN Preparation Novice Minerva Illuminatus Minor FREEMASONRY The Apprentice (symbolic) Vennasmüürlane Champion Illuminatus Major, or Scotch novice Illuminatus Conductor or Scottish Knight (Scotland) SECRETS Presbyter, or priest (at least) The Prince Regent, or Magus (Magus) (MAJOR) King (Rex) (Book) Illuminati of Bavaria: Chapter 7, Illuminati Strategies of Indoctrination (with footnotes, secondary and primary references) (Book) America's Secret Establishment: An introduction to the Order of Skull and Bones by Dr. Antony Sutton; Chapter 8: How the Order Controls Education (Illuminati influence on Public Schooling) Antony Sutton dot com (Book) Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rightsby Thom Hartmann (Book) The Story of the Rockefeller Foundation by Raymond Fosdick (Video) The Corporation Nation by Clint Richardson (on YouTube) Q: Why are we not taught that we're being preyed on by Corporations?A: Predators designed the system.Peace Revolution partner podcasts:Corbett Report dot comMedia Monarchy dot comGnostic Media PodcastSchool Sucks Project PodcastRemedy Radio PodcastMeria dot netThe Unplugged Mom PodcastOther productions by members of the T&H network:Navigating Netflix (2011) our new video series wherein we conduct a critical analysis of films you might have missed; Navigating Netflix is available for free on YouTube."Memories of a Political Prisoner", an interview with Professor Chengiah Ragaven, graduate of Oxford, Cambridge, and Sussex; AFTER he was a political prisoner, who was exiled from South Africa, during Apartheid. (2011)What You've Been Missing! (2011) is our video series focusing in on the history of corruption in our public education system.Top Documentary Films dot com: Hijacking Humanity by Paul Verge (2006)Top Documentary Films dot com: Exposing the Noble Lie (2010)Top Documentary Films dot com: The Pharmacratic Inquisition by Jan Irvin (2007)THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT! If you would like to donate so that we can continue producing independent media without commercial advertising, simply click the button below for a one-time donation: Alternatively, You can become a Member and Support our ability to create media for the public (while You make new friends and enjoy educating yourself along the way) by subscribing to the Tragedy and Hope Community: Monthly @ $14.95 / month Yearly @ $120.00 / year *Subscription details on Subscribe page in the Top Menu.

Notes, References, and Links for further study: Use the donation buttons at the bottom of these notes, or on the sidebar of this site, or the sidebar of Tragedy and Hope dot com,  for “The Ultimate History Lesson: A Weekend with John Taylor Gatto” multi-DVD interview project, currently in post-production. With over 5 hours of interview footage, this is a collection of education which is invaluable. If you donate $50 or more towards the completion of this project, you will receive the entire DVD set; as our way of saying Thanks! Your invitation to the Tragedy and Hope online critical thinking community Peace Revolution Podcast's primary hosting site (2009-2011) Peace Revolution Podcast's backup hosting site (2006-2011, also includes the 9/11 Synchronicity Podcast episodes, starting at the bottom of the page) Tragedy and Hope dot com (all of our media productions, freeto the public) On the top menu, there is a “Trivium” selection, which includes the Brain model discussed in Peace Revolution episodes. “A Peaceful Solution” by Willie Nelson w/thanks to the Willie Nelson Peace Research Institute T&H Partner Podcasts: Media Monarchy, Corbett Report, Gnostic Media, & Remedy Radio www.StartPage.com (It uses Google's search algorithm, but doesn'tcollect your private info and search history) StartPage search engine Firefox add-on The Brain(mind mapping software to organize your research) download for FREE The free version works for all functions except web publication (Video) Carpe Diem! / Dead Poets' Society (on YouTube) (Video) Reel Wisdom: Lessons from 40 films in 7 minutes (on YouTube) (Video) Consuming Kids (on YouTube) (Video) Corporations in the Classroom (on YouTube) (Video) The Corporation(on YouTube) Dr. Robert Hare's diagnostic checklist applied to Corporations (Video) Moment of Clarity with Lee Camp (on Lee Camp dot net) (Video) Ron Paul discussing Carroll Quigley's “Tragedy and Hope” (on YouTube) (Audio) James Corbett interviews Richard Grove (on Corbett Report dot com) (Audio) from Consuming Kids (see above) (Audio) from Corporations in the Classroom (see above) List of Oldest Schools in the United Kingdom (on Wikipedia) Definition of Epistemology (on Wikipedia) Solipsism(on Wikipedia) “Solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist. The term comes from Latin solus (alone) and ipse (self). Solipsism as an epistemological position holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure. The external world and other minds cannot be known, and might not exist outside the mind. As a metaphysical position, solipsism goes further to the conclusion that the world and other minds do not exist. Although the number of individuals sincerely espousing solipsism has been small, it is not uncommon for one philosopher to accuse another's arguments of entailing solipsism as an unwanted consequence, in a kind of reductio ad absurdum. In the history of philosophy, solipsism has also served as a skeptical hypothesis.” Solipsism is first recorded with the Greek presocratic sophist, Gorgias (c. 483–375 BC) who is quoted by the Roman skeptic Sextus Empiricus as having stated: Nothing exists; Even if something exists, nothing can be known about it; and Even if something could be known about it, knowledge about it can't be communicated to others. Much of the point of the Sophists was to show that "objective" knowledge was a literal impossibility. (See also comments credited to Protagoras of Abdera). (Book) Principles of Secondary Education(1918) by Alexander Inglis (on Archive.org) See pages: 206; Chapter X, 340-380 Propaedeutic Function (on Wikipedia) Prussian Ph.D. System / Wilhelm Wundt (on Wikipedia) (Book) The Leipzig Connection: Basics in Education by Paolo Lionni (on Amazon.com) Prussian influence in Japan Meiji Constitution 1890(on Wikipedia) “After the Meiji Restoration in 1868, it provided for a form of constitutional monarchy based on the Prussian model, in which the Emperor of Japan was an active ruler and wielded considerable political power (over foreign policy and diplomacy) …” (Book) Principles of Psychology by William James (1890) (Book) Morals and Dogma of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry by Albert Pike (1871) (Book) The Impact of Science on Societyby Bertrand Russell (1953) “It is to be expected that advances in physiology and psychology will give governments much more control over individual mentality than they now have even in totalitarian countries. Fichte laid it down that education should aim at destroying free will, so that, after pupils have left school, they shall be incapable, throughout the rest of their lives, of thinking or acting otherwise than as their schoolmasters would have wished. But in his day this was an unattainable ideal: what he regarded as the best system in existence produced Karl Marx. In future such failures are not likely to occur where there is dictatorship. Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible. Even if all are miserable, all will believe themselves happy, because the government will tell them that they are so.” – page 61 of the 1953 first edition (Document) Kindergarten as the first Initiation level of the Illuminati(from Estonian Wikipedia and Translated) “Illuminati seem borrowed from modern mandrivabamüürluse kujundlikkusest blossoming, with levels of breeding like rabbits . They had three separate sets of steps, and each set of four or five steps:  KINDERGARTEN Preparation Novice Minerva Illuminatus Minor FREEMASONRY The Apprentice (symbolic) Vennasmüürlane Champion Illuminatus Major, or Scotch novice Illuminatus Conductor or Scottish Knight (Scotland) SECRETS Presbyter, or priest (at least) The Prince Regent, or Magus (Magus) (MAJOR) King (Rex) (Book) Illuminati of Bavaria: Chapter 7, Illuminati Strategies of Indoctrination (with footnotes, secondary and primary references) (Book) America's Secret Establishment: An introduction to the Order of Skull and Bonesby Dr. Antony Sutton; Chapter 8: How the Order Controls Education (Illuminati influence on Public Schooling) Antony Sutton dot com (Book) Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rightsby Thom Hartmann (Book) The Story of the Rockefeller Foundation by Raymond Fosdick (Video) The Corporation Nation by Clint Richardson (on YouTube) Peace Revolution partner podcasts: Corbett Report dot com Media Monarchy dot com Gnostic Media Podcast School Sucks Project Podcast Remedy Radio Podcast Meria dot net The Unplugged Mom Podcast Other productions by members of the T&H network: Navigating Netflix (2011) our new video series wherein we conduct a critical analysis of films you might have missed; Navigating Netflix is available for free on YouTube. "Memories of a Political Prisoner", an interview with Professor Chengiah Ragaven, graduate of Oxford, Cambridge, and Sussex; AFTER he was a political prisoner, who was exiled from South Africa, during Apartheid. (2011) What You've Been Missing! (2011) is our video series focusing in on the history of corruption in our public education system. Top Documentary Films dot com: Hijacking Humanity by Paul Verge (2006) Top Documentary Films dot com: Exposing the Noble Lie (2010) Top Documentary Films dot com: The Pharmacratic Inquisition by Jan Irvin (2007) THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT! If you would like to donate so that we can continue producing independent media without commercial advertising, simply click the button below for a one-time donation: Alternatively, You can become a Member and Support our ability to create media for the public (while You make new friends and enjoy educating yourself along the way) by subscribing to the Tragedy and Hope Community: Monthly @ $14.95 / month Yearly @ $120.00 / year *Subscription details on Subscribe page in the Top Menu.