Welcome, Guest

• Forgot your password?
• Apply for membership

1. • CommentAuthorNomad
   • CommentTimeMay 21st 2006

    permalink
   If morality really changed after Christianity took hold of Europe, then the Enlightenment maybe the philosophical realization of Christ’s message, even if one of its ideals was against organized religion. According to, I think it was Nietzsche, in pre-Christian Europe good was defined as courage, power, strength, victory, while bad was defined as weakness, failure, cowardice. After Christianity took hold and embedded itself in the fabric of European culture, morality slowly began to change. Good became self-sacrifice(similar to courage), love of fellow humans, forgiveness, selflessness, while bad became murder, harm of fellow humans, greed, selfishness. During the Enlightenment, these values broke free from Christianity, and started to realize itself in political treatises, philosophical works, poetry and literary masterpieces. Christ’s message of love of your fellow man, translated into the natural rights of man. So can it be true of the atheist who feels contempt for Christianity, yet feels love for his fellow man, that his morals are a product of Christianity, or at least Jesus? And if this is true, than imagine the power of what that one man has done to Western civilization. But, if Nietzsche was wrong, than this idea has no real weight, has it not?
2. •  
     CommentAuthorMole of Production
   • CommentTimeMay 22nd 2006 edited

    permalink

   If morality really changed after Christianity took hold of Europe, then the Enlightenment maybe the philosophical realization of Christ’s message, even if one of its ideals was against organized religion.

   Who is making the claim that morality changed "after Christianity took hold of Europe"? To which interpretation of "Christ's message" do you refer? Lemme try to reason through this.
   
   From what I've read, one of the few messages that is consistently attributed to the historical Jesus is the idea (recognizable in a fairly intact form in lines from the Lord's Prayer, though there are other phrasings floating about): "Thy kingdom come; Thy will be done on Earth as it is in heaven." This can be interpreted several ways, but the two dominant forms are:
   
   

   • Jesus was talking about the apocalypse at which time the Earth will be cleansed, the just will ascend to Heaven, and the wicked will burn in Hell.
     
   
   
   • Jesus was talking about his wish for a Utopia here on Earth where people behave in life as though they were already in Heaven.

   
   The former is an historically popular way to fill pews and offering plates, but economic success doesn't make it less 'true' in the eyes of believers. The latter interpretation, if it came to pass, would make religion rather redundant since worship would just be a part of life. That would seem to make it a disorganized sort of religion, which may be what the Deists had in mind.

   According to, I think it was Nietzsche, in pre-Christian Europe good was defined as courage, power, strength, victory, while bad was defined as weakness, failure, cowardice. After Christianity took hold and embedded itself in the fabric of European culture, morality slowly began to change. Good became self-sacrifice(similar to courage), love of fellow humans, forgiveness, selflessness, while bad became murder, harm of fellow humans, greed, selfishness.

   Nietzsche had a powerful way with words, but he was no historian, he was rarely consistent in his observations, and he was an atheist who hated Christians. His single consistent message was "will to power." That's pretty much it. The rest of his writings have to be examined at the deeper level of intent: in your example, he makes pre-Roman Europe out to be very macho, but he probably does this as a critique of his own society. Either way, the earliest documentation of European culture was written by the Romans who were far from biased. To them, if you weren't Roman you were a backwards barbarian. Romans were also, after the conversion of Constantine, the ones to spread Christianity to Europe. That occurred hundreds of years after Augustus, who held the citizens of his empire to an extremely high moral standard (he banished Ovid to the colonies for writing bawdy poems, for example).

   During the Enlightenment, these values broke free from Christianity, and started to realize itself in political treatises, philosophical works, poetry and literary masterpieces. Christ’s message of love of your fellow man, translated into the natural rights of man.

   Christianity has hardly been a static entity, and it has never had a monopoly on morality. Also, Christian morality didn't burst fully armored from Christ's forehead. It's based on Jewish, Roman, and Pagan values and traditions among others. Early sects of "Christ cults" had their own interpretations of the Jesus myths and saying. Later Christians fought against each other until a comparably large and powerful group of them decided what among the testaments represented the true accounts of Jesus' life and sayings. They then proceeded to convert or kill the 'heretics' until there was one 'true' church. Even that didn't last long once Constantine declared himself Pope and moved the seat of faith to Constantinople. And on and on and on. Throughout most of the history of Christianity, the Bible and the Mass weren't even translated into anything other than Latin or Greek. To the vast majority of Christians "Christ's message" was nothing but gibberish until Luther did his translations.

   So can it be true of the atheist who feels contempt for Christianity, yet feels love for his fellow man, that his morals are a product of Christianity, or at least Jesus? And if this is true, than imagine the power of what that one man has done to Western civilization.

   I'm an atheist, though I was raised Christian and Christianity is an undeniable part of my cultural heritage. But to say my morals are a product of Christianity would be to oversimplify things. The most moral person I know is a Muslim, and he's far more moral than I. That being the case, if what you propose is true Christian morality just ain't what it seems.
   
   Also, don't confuse contempt for the discourse and the behavior of some Christians with contempt for the entire religion.

   But, if Nietzsche was wrong, than this idea has no real weight, has it not?

   I think you're either misunderstanding Nietzsche or this speculation comes from another source altogether. Either way: Yeah, the idea is pretty much wrong.
   
   Errr, sorry if I got a bit preachy there. I've studied the history of Christianity quite a lot. I'm not clear on what your personal religious stance is, Nomad, but I'm accustomed to hearing believers and nonbelievers alike equate modern religions with their historical forms, and it just isn't that simple. I am not, however, an expert on Nietzsche, so if I've done him any harm someone please correct me.
3. •  
     CommentAuthorDanieru
   • CommentTimeMay 22nd 2006

    permalink
   Great expounding there Mr. Mole. I quake in the shadow of your knowledge of Christianity, a superb thing to have in a world largely governed by the teachings it conveys (actually, I believe it is a world largely governed by what people believe are the teachings it conveys. It should be the law that one cannot call oneself a Christian unless one has thoroughly studied the Bible).
   
   Of course part of what has always made Christianity so powerful is the way it has been allowed to be popularised and made adherent to people's already established world views. Christ's message is not what made Christianity so revolutionary, indeed many hundreds, if not thousands, of supposed messiahs and mythological frameworks arose from the fertile crescent at around the same time as Christ. St. Paul has to be hailed as one of the greatest PR men in history. His breadth of presence upon our world still astounds me. Treating your neighbours as equals ain't all that original.
   
   I am almost always taken aback by the ability for the western mind to completely sidestep the wealth of historical evolutions of thought which occured outside the continents of Europe. My knowledge of these 'external' societal upheavels is itself full of holes, but I always try, when thinking of how we got to where we are today, to assess in my world view the wealth of Eastern influences, islamic, Northern European and even African philosophical advancements (which I repeat my knowledge of is dire). Confucius is one name which comes to mind, possibly because in many ways Jesus' teachings seem to follow on from where Confucius left off (whilst of course it is very very unlikely jesus had ever heard, nor could he have heard, of Confucius).
   
   I just dug this up real quick:

   The Ethics of Confucius
   
   Three key principles are emphasized in Confucius' teachings: the principles of Li, Jen and Chun-Tzu. The term Li has several meanings, often translated as propriety, reverence, courtesy, ritual or the ideal standard of conduct. It is what Confucius believed to be the ideal standard of religious, moral, and social conduct.
   
   The second key concept is the Principle of Jen. It is the fundamental virtue of Confucian teaching. Jen is the virtue of goodness and benevolence. It is expressed through recognition of value and concern for others, no matter their rank or class. In the Analects, Confucius summarizes the principle of Jen in this statement, often called The Silver Rule: "Do not do to others what you would not like them to do to you." (Analects 15:23) Li provides the structure for social interaction. Jen makes it a moral system.
   
   The third important concept is Chun-Tzu, the idea of the true gentleman. It is the man who lives according to the highest ethical standards. The gentleman displays five virtues: self-respect, generosity, sincerity, persistence, and benevolence. His relationships are described as the following: as a son, he is always loyal; as a father, he is just and kind; as an official, he is loyal and faithful; as a husband, he is righteous and just; and as a friend, he is faithful and tactful.
   
   If all men would live by the principles of Li and Jen and strive to the character of the true gentleman, justice and harmony would rule the empire.
   
   The Christian would find himself in agreement with many of Confucius' ethical principals and virtues. A Christian would also agree with many of the character qualities of the true gentleman and seek to develop those qualities.
   
   What accounts for the similarity in ethics in Confucianism and other religious systems is what Paul states in Romans 2. Within every man there exists a God-given conscience or natural law that guides our moral conduct. This is because we are created in the image of God, and so we reflect His character. However, similarity in ethical codes does not mean the religions are the same.
   
   The key difference can be illustrated this way. Confucian law is summarized by The Silver Rule. Jesus summarizes his teachings this way, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself." (Matthew 22:38) Confucius believed that in order to truly achieve the principles of Li, Jen, and the character of the true gentleman, one must look within oneself. Jesus takes his teaching a step further. All His principles revolve around a relationship with God first. Only then can we truly love our fellow man

   The Enlightenment was not a sudden awakening of human's innate qualities as a moral being. We've been slowly waking up for many thousdans of years, and sadly we have further yet to go than so far we have come.
4. • CommentAuthorwhat?
   • CommentTimeMay 22nd 2006

    permalink
   The library at Alexendria would have held copies of everything from the Tao Te Ching and I Ching to the Upanishads and what else of which we'll never know....did you know that Cristianity was well established in Tibet before the arrival of Buddhism? I'll dig out the references for that...propa akidemik refs too... Kung fu tzu...manners and goodwill make the sage......no nicotine= no coherence...Wake me up when we get there.
5. • CommentAuthorNomad
   • CommentTimeMay 22nd 2006 edited

    permalink
   Thanks for the reality check and history lesson. Indeed i am not as well-read as many of you, and i am here only to learn. I should have made it clear i was referring only to western civilization. I was not raised Christian nor have i studied it, so i shouldn't talk about it, but you know, i want to express the little knowledge i have of it, so i can learn more.
   I know its more complicated but you know how in the Old Testament it talks of 'eye for an eye' than in the new testament Jesus is like "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." (Matthew 5:38-42, NIV)
   
   A story like that could have had a powerful effect on Western morals, indeed my father who is a Muslim from India, was affected by that sermon. Yes, these are universal truths, and many parts of the wolrd have similar teachings. But I was merely speculating that maybe Jesus' teachings of this sort might have had an influence on Western culture, the same way Confucius' ideas still have influence on Chinese culture and Mohammed's teachings still hold bearing as well. Yes, the Chinese may be just as moral if Confucius had not existed, but there is no denying the amount of influence his ideas hold on that particular society. The same can be said of Mohammed and the writers of the Bhagavad-Gita. I also know of highly moral Muslims, and their ethics are rooted in the teachings of the Koran, and belief in God. Is it wrong to speculate that in a region that has been Islamic for centuries, a secular philosophy that springs from that region may have morals that are rooted in Islam?
   
   I am not a religious person, I was merely stating that teachings associated with Jesus had and still has influence on people who do not realize it. It is said that Mohammed, on his travels as a youngster, first learned of monotheism from Christians, and Islamic history tells us it was a sect of Christian monks who first identified him as a prophet. The Koran also claims that Jesus was the only prophet to be born pure, as all other prophets had to be "spiritually cleaned". The European enlghtenment period was also influenced by the ancient greeks but remember that right before that period, was a time when many Christians began to reject Catholic doctrine and reinterpret what Jesus was meaning. And though his teaching may not be that original, when the vast majority of a society is looking up to this man, and his teachings are constantly in people's minds(thanks to St. Paul, Constantine, and others) than his influence will be very great in that part of the world( just as Confucius to the Chinese, and Mohammed to Islam)
   
   Just as Christianity may have transformed morals in Europe, Islam transformed morals for many in India. Before Islam hit India, there was a rigid caste system, i'm sure you have heard of the untouchables. Though the caste system still is here today, under Islamic law, it was outlawed(outlawed for Indian Muslims, Hindus were still free to practise their religion for a price). Islam offered a moral system in which all men were equal, and that is why many lower caste Indians converted to Islam. I am not stating Muslims have better morals than Hindus, just trying to give an example of how a religion may affect the moral structure of a region. The advent of Islam or Buddhism for that matter, may have inspired other religions or ideologies to form with no apparent connection to these two religions, but with similar sets of morals that were quite different than the predominant sets of beliefs before Islam or the Buddha.
   
   But what if the Muslim rulers of India, who were extremely
   powerful(Moguls: Kabir, Sha Jahan, etc.) decided to forcefully convert all Indians to Islam, and kill those who resisted? Than the caste system may have been wiped out(and a great and rich culture with it) and individuals would not be been born into such a prejudiced and oppressive social system as the one untouchables face even today. You see how different the moral fabric of that society would be than what we have today? And new, secular ideologies born out of that region, would be greatly influenced by moral standards set by the previously dominant ideological force.
   
   That is precisely what happened in Europe regarding Christianity and the Enlightenment. Christian armies virtually wiped out all other belief structures in Europe(Judaism was somewhat spared), inserting a new, dominating belief system with Jesus at its center. The European Renaissance and Enlightenment sprang forth from this new groundwork of ideology(along with outside influences of course). A culture that has had Christian morals for hundreds of years, will still have similar morals after Christianity's influence starts to fade. The morals are passed down thru education, and not necessarily religious education as much as societal indoctrination via mass media, tradition, literature, etc. So, for example, folks in China who say they don't know much about Confucius, are still influenced by his teachings, because of his impact on that particular culture. Sorry, if i am being redundant, i just think i have point here.
   
   Oh yeah, and if 'we live in a world largely governed by the teachings (Christianity) convey', than how can Christ not have a great influence on the morals of non-believers and believers alike? The law is a powerful force in modern society, it is enforced by men with guns ready to put you in steel cages or even kill you. You'd think that the law has something to do with shaping morals for the modern individual. Even, if Jesus is not the originator of many of the ideas in
   Christianity, his actions triggered the beginning of the religion that swept the western world. He is very influential when it comes to Western morals, and we all know how much the West has influenced the entire world.
   
   So, i think i was wrong earlier by giving Christ all the credit, but i still think he has had a greater amount of influence than most intellectuals give him credit for. Many of my friends growing up, who have had Christianity shoved in their faces since birth, get on the offensive when i speculate on the positive influence of the religion. This attitude is also prevalent in the intellectual culture of the U.S.-- Christianity is often correlated with right-wing, bigot America, and probably rightly so. What do y'all think? :)
6. •  
     CommentAuthorDanieru
   • CommentTimeMay 22nd 2006

    permalink
   First off, no need to be so humble. We're all on here to exchange ideas rather than correct each others'. Sounds like you got a good grasp of it all to me anyway. I would like to know more about the Muslim faith, especially in these times when its impact on the world is becoming more pronounced...
   
   ----
   
   I think this boils down, as many things do, to a chicken/egg question. Was it the emergence of Confucius which influenced Chinese thought or was it the bed rock of Chinese thought from which Confucius emerged? If one looks sidelong at Western and Eastern thought, in a completely generalised sense, they are best understood from entirely distinct polar regions. Here's an extract from a New Scientist article I used on my blog a while back:

   Chinese and American people see the world differently - literally. While Americans focus on the central objects of photographs, Chinese individuals pay more attention to the image as a whole, according to psychologists at the University of Michigan, in Ann Arbor, US....
   
   ...Psychologists watching American and Japanese families playing with toys have also noted this difference. "An American mother will say: 'Look Billy, a truck. It’s shiny and has wheels.' The focus is on the object," explains Nisbett. By contrast, Japanese mothers stress context saying things like, "I push the truck to you and you push it to me. When you throw it at the wall, the wall says 'ouch'.
   
   Nisbett also cites language development in the cultures. "To Westerners it seems obvious that babies learn nouns more easily. But while this is the case in the West, studies show that Korean and Chinese children pick up verbs – which relate objects to each other - more easily." - Eastern and Western Realities...

   In his book 'The Geography of Thought' Nisbett goes further to assess how these distinct reality views might have emerged. Much of his conclusion rests on the different frameworks which evolved i.e.
   
   Western life has always been focussed more on the power of the individual. Farming practices encouraged a self serving society where the interplay of individual, often disparate seeming elements, formed the substance of civilisation, and through that, thought itself. In China, and other Eastern countries, farming was a much greater mutual burden. The way in which rice is farmed means that whole communities were better served to work as a whole conglomerate, no questions asked, for this would ensure everybody maintained harvest. (More super generalised distinctions here)
   
   These two systems of society are of course many thousands of years older than either Confucian or Greek philosophy.
   
   Nisbett too stresses that there is no biological difference in our thought processes, merely that the society in which one lives has an enormous impact on one's perception. This can be shown by people living in Westernised regions of the East, such as Hong Kong and SIngapore, who exhibit elements of both Eastern and Western perspectives.
   
   Anyway, I guess this is somewhat irrelevant to your original question, but surely it is worth contemplating? My personal belief is that Jesus, if he existed at all, has never been properly represented in the Gospels. The moral framework which was composed via his simulacrum was not evidence of a massive shift in thought at a certain point in history, more it draws the outline of a whole evolution in perspective which had been slowly forming itself under the 'opression' of the Romans and very likely long before they ever arrived in Israel. Jesus was a figure head and little else.
   
   I was fascinated to learn of an Egyptian Pharoah known as Akhenate who deconstructed the capital of Egypt, moving his entire entourage hundreds of kilometres up the Nile, all in the name of a Mono-deity he called Aten (our sun, Sol). This is the first evidence in history of the worship of one God. The Pharoah's new philosophy actually collapsed after his death, leading Tutankhamun to reinstate the plethora of Gods he had rejected, but many scholars believe that in the underclasses of Egypt the mono-deity was secretly worshipped right up to the time when Moses lead the Isrealites out of the desert (for which of course there is absolutely no historical evidence except what the bible says. Unlike Jesus, Moses was never mentioned by scholars outside Judeo-Christian-Islamic circles).
   
   All thought is gradual, all philosophy a slow aquisition. History only recognises, and celebrates the obvious shifts in perspective, but the seeds are slower to germinate than anyone is capable of recognising.
7. • CommentAuthorNomad
   • CommentTimeMay 22nd 2006 edited

    permalink
   "Jesus, if he existed at all, has never been properly represented in the Gospels. The moral framework which was composed via his simulacrum was not evidence of a massive shift in thought at a certain point in history, more it draws the outline of a whole evolution in perspective which had been slowly forming..."
   
   Do you think the evolution of perspective is still forming? I like the idea of various individual simulacrum floating around in a societal consciousness(for lack of better word). Like a sea of ideas and symbols for our minds to navigate thru.
   
   Do you correlate the simulacra with hyperreality? And are these concepts used to understand the modern, technological, consumerfied society of the West and Japan? How different is Japan's simulacra(or hyperreality) to America or Europe? I think i understand these concepts, though i lack the proper vocabulary to discuss and analyze them. I am wondering about the differences between Japan and the west, because it will help me understand how much influence consumer society(hyperreality?) will have on the Islamic world.
   
   And what role does Individuality play in these post-modern societies, particularly in the East?
8. •  
     CommentAuthorDanieru
   • CommentTimeMay 22nd 2006 edited

    permalink
   Wow, some super questions there.
   
   I intend to ponder this some more. I reckon a couple of my past posts go into (at least some of ) these ideas:
   
   
9. Hyperreal Wikipedia and the Evolution of Mu-Lacra
10. Art, Technology and the Progressive hand of Human Imagination
11. Pi Transcendence, Conscious Assimilation
    and the Quest for the Ultimate Metaphor
12. The Symbiosis of Abstract Thought with Hominid Evolution


The Japan/Asia angle is fascinating indeed. Living out here has definitely convinced me that the Japanese are amongst the most consumerised society on Earth, but whether they dwell in the simulacra more than the rest of us is a question I can't attempt to answer. Fascinating too is your allusion to the future development of Islamic society. I suppose the true conflict here is the way in which the 'global terror network' (or disparate, angry and passionate Islamic youth from around the world) has used the very commercial system they claim to abhore in their own development. I firmly believe that the 9/11 attacks, the simulacrisation of Osama Bin Laden into his present pre-death martyr form and the public, media and Islamic manipulation of the current Iraq 'war' could not have happened in an internet free world.

Perhaps the change in human perception, as influenced by this simulacrisation of our world of forms, has already overtaken our capacities to deal with it.

I'm off to ponder this some more. Browse my past posts and tell me what you think is relevant...