Hellenismos/Hellenic Polytheism/Hellenic Reconstruction - what are they?

[*~Amora~*]

Taken from a previous thread: What are the "popular" definitions are of "Hellenismos", "Hellenic Polytheism", "Hellenic Reconstructionism"?

[Twinkle]

Hellenism (Gk. Hellenismos)

(1) Grecism
(2) devotion to or imitation of ancient Greek thought, customs, or styles
(3) Greek civilization especially as modified in the Hellenistic period by influences from southwestern Asia
(4) a body of humanistic and classical ideals associated with ancient Greece and including reason, the pursuit of knowledge and the arts, moderation, civic responsibility, and bodily development
merriam-webster.com (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hellenism)


an imitation of or similarity to the Greeks.
dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hellenism)


the principles and ideals associated with classical Greek civilization
wordnet.princeton.edu (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=hellenism)


Hellenismos (religious)

(1) Name coined by the Emperor Julian to describe Hellenic polytheism
(2) The modern reconstruction of Hellenic polytheism
Hellenic Polytheism

(1) The polytheistic, pre-Christian religion of Ancient Greece
(2) A polytheistic religion characteristic of or which imitates the pre-Christian religion of Ancient Greece, inclusive of practices, thought, and ethics.
Hellenic Paganism

(1) The polytheistic, pre-Christian religion of Ancient Greece
(2) A polytheistic religion characteristic of or which imitates the pre-Christian religion of Ancient Greece, inclusive of practices, thought, and ethics.


Hellenismos historically does not include or have any legitimate links to NeoDruidry, Wicca, Ceremonial Magic, or any other form of Neopaganism, New Ageism, or Occultism. Popular Pagan culture promotes an eclectic and very individualistic form of religious and spiritual practice based primarily on unverified personal gnosis blended with Wicca-ish, Druid-ish, and/or HOGD-ish methods. New Age philosophy endorses forms of individual Self-Spirituality with no boundaries, creation of teachings and practices from “outside” and “fringe” traditions, and the formulating of practices based primarily on personal experiences and feeling over objective adaptation of ancient tradition. Occultism and Esotericism includes Gnosticism, Hermeticism, Thelema, Neopaganism, and an innumerable list of movements that claim to possess secret knowledge. These practices were developed from the romantic notions of 17th century Christian ‘mystics’, and were further cultivated by various Freemasons, the Golden Dawn, Aleister Crowley, and the likes of Israel Regardie during the 19th and 20th centuries.


Further...in order to understand what Hellenismos, Hellenic Polytheism, Hellenic Paganism is...one must understand what it *is* to be Hellenic:


Hellenic

1644, from Gk. Hellenikos, from Hellen “a Greek,” first used by Homer in ref. to a Thessalian tribe. Hellenistic (1874) refers to Gk. culture after Alexander; the term Hellenism in this sense was coined 1836 by Ger. historian Johann Gustav Droysen (1808-84).
etymonline.com (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=hellenism&searchmode=none)


of or relating to Greece, its people, or its language; specifically : of or relating to ancient Greek history, culture, or art before the Hellenistic period
merriam-webster.com (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hellenic)


of, pertaining to, or characteristic of the ancient Greeks or their language, culture, thought, etc., esp. before the time of Alexander the Great.
dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hellenic)

From Here: http://hellenismos.us/?p=113#more-113

As you can see...the definitions used are neither narrow or rigid, but they are not inclusive of anything and everything having to do with a Greek God.

[Twinkle]

Here are some additional definitions found on the web and in various books.:



Hellenismos, also called "Hellenic Polytheism", is the traditional polytheistic religion of ancient Greece, reconstructed according to ancient and modern scientific sources and adapted to modern life. ... Hellenismos:now! (about Hellenismos) (http://hellenismos.suchdeinbuch.at/wiki/doku.php/en:hellenismos:start)
Hellenismos is the traditional, polytheistic religion of ancient Greece, reconstructed in and adapted to the modern world. It is also called Hellenic ... Hellenismos FAQ (The Cauldron: A Pagan Forum) (http://www.ecauldron.com/dc-faq.php)
Hellenismos is one of the names for the religion that I practice. Other terms are Hellenism, Hellenic or Greek Reconstructionism, Olympianism, Dodecatheism, Greek Paganism, Greco-Roman Paganism, Classical Paganism, or simply Paganism. I prefer Hellenismos because it is the most accurate description, as it encompasses the whole complex of Greek ethnicity, language, culture, religion, and way of life. For the ancients, there was no word which corresponded completely to our modern concept of religion. ... Sannion's Sanctuary (What is Hellenismos?) (http://www.winterscapes.com/sannion/hellenismos.htm)
Hellenismos is the traditional, polytheistic religion of ancient Greece, reconstructed in and adapted to the modern world.
Winter, Sarah Kate Istra (2004, First Edition) KHARIS: Hellenic Polytheism Explored, Cafepress.com, p 37.
Further information:

Hellenismos (Greek) = Hellenism (English) = Hellenismus (Latin) = Hellenisme (French)

"No less important to the preservation of traditional linguistic virtues is the broader and more tolerant category of hellenismos, or "pure" and correct Greek."
~ page 35, Classical Pasts: The Classical Traditions of Greece and Rome by James I. Porter


"... it is no accident that the rare noun Hellenismos, with an extended sense which included the Greek way of life and culture ..."
~ pages 183-184, The Cambridge History of Judaism by W D Davies and others


"Hellenismos as "pure Greek" is used in opposition to barbarikos."
~ page 57, Paul and the Religious Experience of Reconciliation by Gilbert I. Bond


"Theophrastus lists not a single virtue but four — correctness or hellenismos, clarity, appropriateness, and ornamentation."
~ page 256, Theophrastus of Eresus: On His Life and Work by William W. Fortenbaughand others

[YoungSoulRebel]

http://urbanhellenistos.wordpress.com/faq-what-is-hellenismos/

In a nutshell:
"Hellenic Polytheism" is "Hellenismos" in the way that "Christianity" is "Jesus-centred Abrahamic monotheism". Religious "reconstruction" is not a religion itself, but a method of practise and of creating new practise to "make up for lost time" and the broken traditions of pre-Christian polytheistic religions.

Emphasising "ancient practise" and "ancient thought" and "ancient beliefs" and so on and so forth is the easiest way, in my opinion, to foster not so much a living religion, but little more than the spiritual equivalent of my friend Ben's Civil War Re-Enactment group. As important as it is to learn and learn from the history of Hellenismos, it's just as important to establish it as a living religion with modern practises and relevance to modern people living modern lives.

[Twinkle]

Cited sources from academics say otherwise, YSR. If you want to create a new definition of a clearly defined term, that's up to you...but be aware that that's what you're doing.

ETA: And I'm not sure how Hellenic Reconstruction...Hellenismos...the reconstruction of ancient greek religious practice, while adapting to us living in the 21st century... encompassing theology, cosmology and philosophy equates to a "dead religion" or reenactment.

If a "living, thriving religion" equates to adding elements of Neopaganism, New Age, Ceremonial magick or anything else that does not equate historically to Hellenism, then it simply is Neopaganism, and not Hellenismos or Hellenic Polytheism.

[Son of Goddess]

Why is it that people so often don't truly understand what Reconstructionism is? ...I probably know the answer to that, but I'll keep quiet...

Reconstructionism does not mean that Recons are looking to do everything 100% exactly the same as the ancients did. Its not even possible to do so anyways. Adaptation, innovation and modernization are required, if not expected, however they must be in keeping with tradition.

How many Recons actually start a fire in their backyard everyday or in their fire place and burn their offerings and let the blood pour upon the altar?

[Hylomorphic]

If a "living, thriving religion" equates to adding elements of Neopaganism, New Age, Ceremonial magick or anything else that does not equate historically to Hellenism, then it simply is Neopaganism, and not Hellenismos or Hellenic Polytheism.

I see this attitude consistently from Hellenists, and it perplexes me.

Ceremonial magick is the successor of Hellenistic theurgy. Qaballah is, broadly speaking, far more Neoplatonic than the historical Judaism which preceded it. The Corpus Hermeticum was an instrumental document in forming the fundamental ideas and practices of the Western occult tradition. The Chaldean Oracles were also very important, especially in early 20th century occultism.

While time and Christianization have moved ceremonial magick away from its pagan roots, there are nonetheless a core set of doctrines that can be traced back to Hellenistic paganism. I can think of no reason why Ceremonial Magick, with some adaptation, should be fundamentally objectionable to Hellenistic religious practice.

Sure, we're not necessarily talking about the kind of thing that should be part of the standard practices of Hellenism, but stating that it has no place seems to me to go too far, if the goal really is to revive the attitudes and beliefs of historical Hellenistic religion.

[YoungSoulRebel]

Cited sources from academics say otherwise, YSR. If you want to create a new definition of a clearly defined term, that's up to you...but be aware that that's what you're doing.

Tim's not an "academic". "Clearly defined"? Oh, not in the way you're thinking, anyway. Definitions outside of Tim's seem to dominate Google -- tell him that his meta-tagging tactics are failing! He's losing his iron grip on this religion he insists lacks any central authority!



ETA: And I'm not sure how Hellenic Reconstruction...Hellenismos...the reconstruction of ancient greek religious practice, while adapting to us living in the 21st century... encompassing theology, cosmology and philosophy equates to a "dead religion" or reenactment.

If a "living, thriving religion" equates to adding elements of Neopaganism, New Age, Ceremonial magick or anything else that does not equate historically to Hellenism, then it simply is Neopaganism, and not Hellenismos or Hellenic Polytheism.

Oh, here we fecking go again....

Where have I said anything about "Neopaganism, New Age, Ceremonial magick or anything else that does not equate historically to Hellenism"? Where? Cite it, Lisa, or admit that I never said it.

Your strawman fails. Strawmen, typically, fail. Yes, there is "that which is" and "that which is not", but if you think of "that which is" as only the narrowly-defined "Classical Athenian practise" and "Julianic purity" and whatever the hell else Tim's going on about ad nauseum this week, then you're argueing that religious evolution ended and that even your own arguments (easily searchable on this very forum) that "new practises need to be developed" is inherently wrong. Are you even paying attention to a good Gods-damned thing you're saying?

The fact of the matter is, you're not actually paying attention to anything I'm saying, and you're just projecting and replying to your pre-conceived notions of what I could be saying based on a few lines said by some guy you don't like. That's not logic, Lisa; that's not logic, that's not reason, that's not even mature.



Why is it that people so often don't truly understand what Reconstructionism is? ...I probably know the answer to that, but I'll keep quiet...

Reconstructionism does not mean that Recons are looking to do everything 100% exactly the same as the ancients did. Its not even possible to do so anyways. Adaptation, innovation and modernization are required, if not expected, however they must be in keeping with tradition.

How many Recons actually start a fire in their backyard everyday or in their fire place and burn their offerings and let the blood pour upon the altar?

That doesn't mean that reconstructionism is any less a methodology.

The purpose of the methodology is simply to "bring things up to speed", "make up for lost time" and answer the question "how would the religion look now, if an unbroken tradition survived openly over the last 1500+ years?"



I see this attitude consistently from Hellenists, and it perplexes me.

Ceremonial magick is the successor of Hellenistic theurgy. Qaballah is, broadly speaking, far more Neoplatonic than the historical Judaism which preceded it. The Corpus Hermeticum was an instrumental document in forming the fundamental ideas and practices of the Western occult tradition. The Chaldean Oracles were also very important, especially in early 20th century occultism.

While time and Christianization have moved ceremonial magick away from its pagan roots, there are nonetheless a core set of doctrines that can be traced back to Hellenistic paganism. I can think of no reason why Ceremonial Magick, with some adaptation, should be fundamentally objectionable to Hellenistic religious practice.

Sure, we're not necessarily talking about the kind of thing that should be part of the standard practices of Hellenism, but stating that it has no place seems to me to go too far, if the goal really is to revive the attitudes and beliefs of historical Hellenistic religion.

Well, the argument itself seems based on some ass-backwards idea of a "religious purity" when, in fact, looking at the data available from both primary and secondary sources simply implies all over the place that such an idea of "purity" never really existed, and that the growth of the religion by the "Hellenistic period" and in large metropolii of that era further destroys the idea that this modern concept of "purity" within the Hellenic religion would have prevailed if unbroken traditions survived openly after Constantine. Logically says that this argument for "purity" most definitely would *not* have dominated.

Ask a Hindu what "pure Hinduism" is and you'll get stared at cock-eyed or (as one of my best friends, who is a Shivite replied to that question) you'll get a calm explanation that Hinduism has many sects that are equally pure to their own traditions. I see the hellenistic era, and I see that Hellenismos most likely would have shared a similar state to modern Hinduism (if it survived open and unbroken), logically, the pieces simply fit in that way -- if only because Hellenismos is a religion that lacks a central authority (something reiterated ad nauseum by one particular person who then turns around and touts an idea of "Classical Athenian purity" as if both ideas can co-exist within any one definition of hellenismos outside of Bizarro Land).

There is no "redefining" that Lisa accuses those who argue against this "Classical Athenian purity" that her bestest ding-danged buddy in the whole widest world and universe espouses -- there is simply a logical interpretation of the term based on the fact that practises changed over the 700+ documented years, and changed from polis to polis. If you went to Sparta in 400BCE and asked what the "pure" religion was, you'd get a very different answer from what you'd get in Athens of that same year, and both answers would be different in 100BCE and different again in 100CE -- that's just the historically documented facts.

The arguments against CM without adaptation hold more water than the arguments against CM with adaptation that you've pointed out. Let's take CM back to its roots and then ask ourselves "hrmm, how would this have evolved today within Hellenismos?" The fact that it's very well documented that the ancient Greeks even borrowed bits here and there from neighbouring peoples means what? Well, it means that it wouldn't hurt to look at non-Hellenic practises and ask "would this fit with Greek ways?" If it wouldn't, then dispose of it, but if it would, then why not? If "Hellenic purity" differed from polis to polis and from era to era, then obviously not even everybody today should be expected to do everything exactly the same way; some common ground with practise is all well and good, but preaching the alleged "virtues" of sameness and some misguided notion of "Hellenic purity" just doesn't work, historically, anthropologically, or sociologically.

[Hylomorphic]

Any notions of purity in Hellenistic religion are demolished by works like Cicero's De Natura Deorum. There wasn't even a consensus about what kinds of things the gods are!

It is precisely such anachronistic notions that have consistently turned me off from reconstructionist religions. That's not to say that I haven't been influenced by the ideals of the reconstructist project, but the way it's done so often strikes me as being incredibly (and anachronistically) closed-minded. It is frowned upon, for instance, to worship gods from pantheons that weren't historically worshipped by the same people. Which strikes me as extremely odd, given the prevalence of syncretism in the ancient world.

It's as if most reconstructionists--or at least, the most outspoken seemingly influential ones--end up keeping the traditions, but ignore the attitudes that laid behind them.

[Twinkle]

Actually, H...I think it's the other way around. The Recons that hold to the Traditions are actually living the worldview of the ancients, in terms of what it was to be a Hellene...at the core...which is ethics.

It is much more narrow minded to blow off what it is to be Hellene so that you can practice whatever you want and cling to a label that doesn't apply.

In terms of syncretism, I think you are confused as to what it is. Syncretism (at least with the Greeks) is not the acceptance of worshiping different Gods, it is the the understanding and identification of foreign Gods with Greek Gods. Zeus is always Zeus, and the associations were always more on the level theological theory than practice.

YSR....It's actually you that are providing the Strawman in this argument. I don't believe that Tim has ever claimed to be an academic, but what he has done is provide a decent argument based on primary and academic sources as to what Hellenismos means.

You actually, haven't. So, while you are entitled to your opinion...why don't you back it up with something instead of attacking Tim for actually having a sourced, reasoned opinion?

As of now, I'm the only one that has provided any sort of academic sources that back up my opinion.

Also...I'm not really understanding what your beef is if you are not defending Occultism, Esotericism, Neopaganism, and New Ageism being included within Hellenismos, especially since your claims about "Classical Athenian practice" and "Julianic purity" is false?

Tim has actually never advocated Classical Athens as being the be all end all of Reconstruction...you are confusing him with Therapon, who changed the focus of his group to Classical Athens. What Tim has said is that Classical Athens is probably the best place to go in terms of the best example of religious practice, but he does not feel that Classical Athens should be *it* in terms of cosmology, philosophy, or theology.

[Hylomorphic]

Actually, H...I think it's the other way around. The Recons that hold to the Traditions are actually living the worldview of the ancients, in terms of what it was to be a Hellene...at the core...which is ethics.Which ethics? Aristotle's? Plato's? Epicurus'? Zeno the Stoics'?

There was a great deal of disagreement among the ancient Greeks as to what the Good is, and hence there were many fundamentally different ethical systems practiced by the Greeks. Indeed, to be a follower of a school of philosophy--and thus to be engaged in such disputes--was considered to be praiseworthy.


It is much more narrow minded to blow off what it is to be Hellene so that you can practice whatever you want and cling to a label that doesn't apply.Okay, sure. I wouldn't call it narrow minded myself. I'd prefer to call it either stupid or intellectually dishonest.



In terms of syncretism, I think you are confused as to what it is. Syncretism (at least with the Greeks) is not the acceptance of worshiping different Gods, it is the the understanding and identification of foreign Gods with Greek Gods. Zeus is always Zeus, and the associations were always more on the level theological theory than practice.To say that the associations were more on the level of theological theory than practice is simply false. Observe the spread of the Isis cult through the Mediterranean area even into Rome. While Isis was identified variously with several goddesses--Demeter, Cybele, Aphrodite--there was no firm, definite association. It would not be inappropriate to say that her identification with pre-existing Greek deities was purely theoretical. In practice, she was worshiped as Isis. The followers of the cult were referred to as Isiakoi.

I mention the Isis cult because it's such a good example, but I could talk about other instances, as well. Zeus was worshiped under a variety of names all throughout Greece. There was even a temple to Zeus Ammon in Sparta.

[Twinkle]

How are Aristotle's, Plato's, Epicurus', and Zeno the Stoics' ethics different, and how they are the same? Do you really know or are you attempting an argument you've heard someone else claim?

Please source the basis of your opinion.

What I said was, "associations were always more on the level theological theory than practice" not "associations were only on the level theological theory, not practice". Isis can be said to be the exception that proves the rule, but do you actually know where Isis was worshiped in Greece? Where her Temple stood, and when her worship in Greece started?

Your "Zeus was worshiped under a variety of names all throughout Greece" is actually along with my Zeus is still Zeus comment, but I am still unclear as to what you are saying...Are you confusing the epithets of Zeus with different Gods?

I'm also unclear as to why you feel the need to debate what is and is not Hellenismos when you've already stated your aversion to Reconstructionism. Are you here to muddy the water because of your own biases? Just curious.

[Hylomorphic]

How are Aristotle's, Plato's, Epicurus', and Zeno the Stoics' ethics different, and how they are the same?There are multiple ways we could order and compare their philosophies. A fairly obvious heuristic would be to look at them in terms of asceticism. Ordered from the most to least ascetic: Stoicism, Platonism, Aristotelianism, Epicureanism.

These are all, of course, broad overviews. No short overview of this kind can do justice to the complexity of the thought of each philosophical school, and so this should not be taken as comprehensive, but as a general statement regarding the tenor and trajectory of each ethical philosophy.

Stoicism: Founded by Zeno, who lectured from his porch (stoa, hence the name of his philosophy). It is difficult to conceive of an ethical philosophy more ascetic than Stoicism. Pleasure and pain are judged by Stoicism to be entirely irrelevant to the worth of an action. Indeed, they tend to lead us away from actions that are truly good, and so one should cultivate an attitude of pure rationality, unmoved by emotion or desire. One should have sex not for pleasure, but because it is one's civic duty to have children. To grieve for one's dead spouse or child is to wallow unvirtuously in unworthy emotion.

Platonism: First, one needs to understand that Platonism as understood by the Greeks was not necessarily an accurate picture of Plato's actual viewpoints, but it is the Greek understanding of Plato that is important here. Plato did not deny that there was something good about physical pleasures, but he claimed that they were mere shadows of the true Good, the only thing that is really real, but which can only be perceived intellectually. The good life as understood by Platonists involved philosophical speculation resulting in an ascent of the soul to union with the Good. Greater and greater apprehension of the Good results in knowledge of how to behave ethically. Nonetheless, to pursue physical pleasures is to allow one's soul to become trapped by mere shadows of shadows.

Aristotelianism: For Aristotle, as for Plato and Zeno, the ultimate good is to act in accordance with rationality. Unlike the other two, he recognized that pleasures and pains form an essential part of the human identity. Thus, his ethics was concerned with cultivating habits that slowly bring natural human desires in accordance with reason. For Aristotle, the basic virtues--generosity, courage, etc.--were to have an appropriate amount of desire or emotion with respect to the situation one faced. By Aristotle's lights, Platonic and Stoic ethics are unvirtuous due to their attempts to extinguish or divert natural human emotions and desires.

Epicureanism: Epicurus was a hedonist, in the sense that the ultimate good for him was to be sought in physical pleasures. He did not, as some in the upper class of the Roman Empire misinterpreted, claim that one should actually pursue pleasure. Rather, one should seek aponia and ataraxia--freedom from pain and freedom from worry. Seeking pleasure, he said, brought on pain and worry far out of proportion to the pleasure gained. (Example: a hangover after a night of drinking.) Philosophizing was, for Epicurus, merely a means to ending ataraxia, just as avoiding hard work was a means to ending aponia.


Do you really know or are you attempting an argument you've heard someone else claim?

Please source the basis of your opinion.That's more than a little insulting.

As it happens, I have a bachelor's degree in philosophy. I did my thesis on Aristotelian ethics.


What I said was, "associations were always more on the level theological theory than practice" not "associations were only on the level theological theory, not practice". Isis can be said to be the exception that proves the rule, but do you actually know where Isis was worshiped in Greece? Where her Temple stood, and when her worship in Greece started?Her worship in Greece started not long after Alexander's conquest of Egypt. The resulting intermingling of Greek and Egyptian cultures resulted in the spread of temples of Isis all throughout the Mediterranean and beyond. The question is not where Isis was worshiped, but where she wasn't!


Your "Zeus was worshiped under a variety of names all throughout Greece" is actually along with my Zeus is still Zeus comment, but I am still unclear as to what you are saying...Are you confusing the epithets of Zeus with different Gods?It was in response to your claim that the syncretism was more theoretical than practical. That Zeus was worshiped as Ammon was a matter of practice, and not merely theory. To worship Zeus as Ammon was not merely to use a different name and image, but to focus on different aspects of Zeus, allowing the theology and myths of the Egyptian deity to inform and change one's perception of Zeus.

The emphasis was on practice far more than theory.


I'm also unclear as to why you feel the need to debate what is and is not Hellenismos when you've already stated your aversion to Reconstructionism. Are you here to muddy the water because of your own biases? Just curious.My problem is not with reconstructionism as a project or an ideal. I am merely frustrated with the way it is so often carried out.

[*~Amora~*]

I am deeply saddened and dismayed that what started out as an interesting discussion has veered off topic into personal attacks. I had hoped that we could come together and discuss the subject and recognize what we agree on, not fixate on how we might disagree.

[Twinkle]

Hylomorphic:



I think you missed the point of my question. I was not asking for a basic description of each approach to ethics, I was asking for fundamental differences and similarities. For instance, you state for Epicurus seeking pleasure brought on pain and worry far out of proportion to the pleasure gained (your example was a hangover after a night of drinking), but Aristotle made similar statements in Nicomachean Ethics, that pleasure was a complement to our activities not a goal, and Plato stated in The Republic that uncontrolled wants for pleasure causes a person to become a slave and brought suffering. Additionally, you state for Zeno, good is cultivated by embracing an attitude of pure rationality, unmoved by emotion or desire. His may be a more extreme method compared to the others we are discussing, but not really in conflict with the ethical ideals of the others. As I understand it, the approach was not extreme abstinence or denial, or the complete suppression of emotions, but the control of passion and desire through discipline, clear judgment, and inner calm.

Again, nothing that is really in a fundamental conflict with the others. Of course there were some differences in approach, but I'm not seeing where you are coming up with the idea they were independent and distinct ethical systems, or even systems in great conflict with the greater ethics of ancient Greek society.


I'm sorry you are insulted by me asking to source the basis of your opinion, but this *is* the internet, and claims of a bachelor's degree in philosophy or a thesis on Aristotelian ethics means nothing, especially when all you are giving is very basic information anyone can find on the net, and not demonstrating an in-depth insight.


Additionally, Ammon was an epithet of Zeus. Zeus Ammon was worshiped as Zeus, not the Egyptian Amun. You completely miss what syncretism is. Again, with both Zeus and Isis you are not demonstrating anything that cannot be quickly googled, and lacks insight and understanding of the information. I can see why you don't favor Reconstructionism.

[Twinkle]

I am deeply saddened and dismayed that what started out as an interesting discussion has veered off topic into personal attacks. I had hoped that we could come together and discuss the subject and recognize what we agree on, not fixate on how we might disagree.


Welcome to the Hellenic Community. We have not been able to "come together" for years, and the level of personal attack has reached an all time high....as can be evidenced from the other thread.

This is why I have remained largely silent, staying off of any internet venue regarding the subject except the forums where my views are consistent with others.

It's vitally important that when I do speak, it's because I know what I'm talking about, and can prove it...with cited sources and reasoned opinion.

I know that you would like us all to find common ground...but we won't. There are Recons, and there are not. There are some that want to claim the title and become angry when others point out *how* they don't fit the description.

The defining of Hellenismos battle has been going on since at least 1992. I'm really surprised that you thought you would find it to be any different on this venue. Actually....I'm not all that surprised. I tried very hard over the last year or so to try and get people to communicate. All I got for my trouble was more personal attacks against myself.

I appreciate what you are trying to do here, but honestly....it is fruitless, and the debate about who and what is Hellenismos will continue...and there is very little room for common ground on the issue.

[patch]

I am deeply saddened and dismayed that what started out as an interesting discussion has veered off topic into personal attacks. I had hoped that we could come together and discuss the subject and recognize what we agree on, not fixate on how we might disagree.

As twinkle said, welcome to the community. :(

Arguments rarely go beyond who is and is not recon, and labels.

Flogging a dead horse? Maybe.
Detrimental to the community? Certainly.

--
My personal label definitions.

Hellenismos- A moot point I don't bother disscussing anymore. Too sticky.
However, I believe it directly means 'The hellenic way' which could be interpreted in so many ways and apparantly even the greek orthodox church has been known to use it. I don't think it is an apt label for our religion. And I don't use it for my own practice.

Hellenic polytheist- I see this as someone who worships primarily hellenic deities (and daimones etc) in some sort of hellenic context. Whilst this may not mean a person is a reconstructionist, it is not the same as a wiccan who also worships zeus, for example.

Hellenic reconstructionist- Somebody who worships the ancient greek gods, with a reconstructionist methodology.

Hellenic pagan- a pagan of some description who mostly worships hellenic deities.

Dodekatheist/Olympianist- See hellenic recon.

Neopagan- *dodges flying pointy objects* Now...I know I'm about to get KILLED by everyone. But I see us as neopagans. My objection with being called neopagan is often related to connotations people add to it.
Dictionary definition:

*A modern adherent of pre christian religion
*A believer in a modernized version of the principles of old pre-Christian religions
*Reverence for nature and natural objects rather than worship of a transcendent supreme being

--
I call myself a hellenic polytheist, my practice is largely reconstructionist, but I reserve the right to deviate from that methodology if I feel it would be beneficial. Thus I don't use the term reconstructionist in case it dosen't fit in future and people turn round and bite me.

[*~Amora~*]

Welcome to the Hellenic Community. We have not been able to "come together" for years, and the level of personal attack has reached an all time high....as can be evidenced from the other thread.
[snip]
I appreciate what you are trying to do here, but honestly....it is fruitless, and the debate about who and what is Hellenismos will continue...and there is very little room for common ground on the issue.

I don't agree that it needs to be that way. I for one am not going to contribute to fruitless discord.

Our values are the same. Our gods are the same. We are all mortal, attempting to achieve our arete (ἀρετή) but also bound by our limitations as humans. We are the same in all ways that are important.

These are my own understandings gathered from varied sources. I'm not going to repeat the citations already made, which are valuable in their own right . .

I think that these three phrases emphasize different aspects of the same movement. Hellenismos is the general term for Hellenic religion. Hellenic Polytheism clarifies this by emphasizing the pluralistic worship of several gods, rather than the modern Greek state endorsed religion, and the monotheistic world-view. Hellenic Reconstructionism also clarifies this in an interesting way by emphasizing research into antiquity to revive what has fallen out of practice in the modern "monotheistic" culture, while also taking those exemplars to adapt to modern culture. As Aristotle said, virtue is the golden mean between two extremes. That, I believe, is what the reconstuctionist movement is all about - the mean between antiquated values we may not comfortable with (animal sacrifices, xenophobia, and sexism among them) and modern Christian-induced concepts. Reconstructionism is a method, and Hellenic Reconstruction emphasizes research over personal gnosis (γνώσις) in the strive to achieve this golden mean.

For the sake of clarity, I call myself a Hellenic Reconstructionist Polytheist.

While I have an academic background and approach, my definitions and understandings are evolving. I respect and value the contributions of those who disagree, as discussion is an excellent way to learn. To me, the points of view expressed are like facets of a diamond.

Thank you, Patch, for bringing the thread back on topic. I think there are a lot of valuable perspectives on what Hellenismos, Hellenic Polytheism, and Hellenic Reconstruction are.

[Kadynas]

Sorry for the late response... AS YSR says, I do have a job, and a life, and I'm not used to this forum being so active, so it's not one I check daily. Funny how this forum is only active whenever there's an argument to be had... *sigh*

I think my biggest point would be that these terms are NOT interchangeable, as some would have them be. Not every word beginning with "Hellen-" is specifically referencing Hellenic Reconstructionism. In fact most of these words had their definitions long before anyone tried resurrecting the old religions, or even just the worship of the old gods.

Thus, something not having anything to do with the religion can be "Hellenic." To me (and the dictionary) this is the most "generic" term you can have. It's an adjective, and as such can apply to anything from artwork to spiritual practice. One does not have to be a Recon to use the word "Hellenic." The word Hellenic simply means: of, pertaining to, or characteristic of the ancient Greeks or their language, culture, thought, etc. So this label does not "belong" somehow to only Hellenic Recons. Unpopular as it may be to say, there in fact /can/ be such valid path classifications as "Hellenic Wicca". In this example, Hellenic would be the adjective modifying the usual meaning of the word Wicca. Hellenic is simply a word that has been in use for ages before Recons ever came to be, so it's foolish to insist that only Recons can use it, and yes I have had to defend this point many times, sad to say.

So in my opinion, the terms "Hellenic Polytheist" or "Hellenic Pagan" - by virtue of using such a wide-ranged term like Hellenic - are naturally going to be broader and more inclusive than the term "Hellenic Recon." What is a Hellenic Polytheist? Quite simply a Polytheist who worships Hellenic gods; no implication of specific practices or methodology is given. What is a Hellenic Pagan? A Pagan (which in itself is an umbrella term with several meanings falling under it) who worships Hellenic gods. Again, the term doesn't imply HOW they're worshipping those gods, only that they are.

I don't think Hellenismos is a "Recon-only" word either. I happen to be a Recon myself, but like others have said Reconstruction is a method, and not the religion itself. I would define Hellenismos in much the same way as the man who first coined the term: Emperor Julian. I simply see it as the restoration of Hellenic Polytheism and the ideals of the Ancient Greeks. One can say that it is also the "traditional" religion of Ancient Greece, but then one must needs admit that the "traditional" religion of Ancient Greece varied from polis to polis, and was not as strictly defined as some in our modern age would lead people to believe. The faith is orthopraxic, and while there may be some beliefs we all have in common, we are not required to share a standardized set of the same beliefs or dogma. The maxims are open to each person's reasoning and interpretation. One can follow Plato's philosophy or that of the Orphics. We have little to no information about the ancient mystery practices of the religion, so we must fill in the blanks as best we can. Many differing beliefs and practices can be had under the banner of Hellenismos, not just Athens-centric Reconstructionism.

And let me stress here that I am NOT making the case that "new age" or "magickal" practices are a part of Hellenismos itself. Anyone making the points I do is somehow automatically assumed to be advocating for an "anything goes" definition, or *gasp* "really" be a "New Ager," neopagan, occultist, etc. (and those terms are usually thrown about as insults.) and I most certainly am not. I am NOT saying that you can worship "just one Greek god" and be Hellenismos. But you can do those things and still be "Hellenic." You can also be Hellenismos and not be a Recon. And a "Hellene" is so generic as to be any of the above. A Greek national can be Greek Orthodox Christian: are you going to tell him he can use the word Hellene to describe himself because he isn't a Hellenic Recon? I'd like to hear that conversation! LOL

(Don't even get me started on the term "occult"... that's another frequently misunderstood umbrella term that includes a LOT of things, some of which ARE in fact perfectly acceptable within even a Hellenic Recon's practice.)

My problem has always been with the desire on the part of some to make all these terms not only interchangeable, but also to make them all equate to Hellenic Reconstructionism. Some of these labels are simply too general to relate to only one thing. It's not that I'm disputing the definitions that others give per se, it's that I'm pointing out that such definitions can and do reply to more than one thing, and that certain labels can and do apply to more than one set of beliefs and practices. LOOK at some of the definitions given: "characteristic of or which imitates." There's the sticking point: if whatever we're discussing has characteristics of Hellenism, or in some way imitates it, it can be said to fit many of these labels.

IMO the strict narrowing of these definitions is little more than "one-true-way-ism," a concept foreign to the very religion we claim to be reconstructing. It only serves to divide the wider community with arguments and create an "us vs. them" mentality that I feel is damaging to the faith overall. I see no reason or justification for Recons to lay sole claim to words that have been in use long before we existed. And I also see no reason to essentially demonize the actual neopagans and "New Agers" in the process; they should be our allies in protecting the religious freedom of all faiths, not something to be avoided like the plague, lest we be somehow "contaminated." :rolleyes

That's my two cents on the matter... Your mileage may vary. In fact, it most likely will. And unlike some people, I'm perfectly fine with that.

[Twinkle]

Hellenic is not a broad term. I've actually shown the definition of what it is.


If we agree that Hellenic means this:

The word Hellenic simply means: of, pertaining to, or characteristic of the ancient Greeks or their language, culture, thought, etc.

Then please explain to me how a Hellenic Wiccan is practicing anything pertaining to, characteristic of the Ancients or their language, culture, or thought.

Just because they've thrown a couple of Greek Gods into the mix doesn't make them Hellenic. Read the definition.

[Twinkle]

Patch:

Hellenic polytheist- I see this as someone who worships primarily hellenic deities (and daimones etc) in some sort of hellenic context.




Please define "some sort of hellenic context"


Further, where are anyone's sources for these opinions? All I'm reading here is vague opinion that has no historical or scholarly basis for why you or Kadynas feel the way you do.

These opinions are so vague that they actually contradict themselves. "Some Hellenic context" and "Hellenic" as an adjective actually would then include New Age, Wicca, Druids, Ceremonial Magician, etc.

Please note that challenging people to think through their opinion and answer questions for clarity is not a personal attack.

If what you all were saying made any sense I wouldn't be arguing it....hell, I might even turn to your way of thinking...but you provide nothing.

[YoungSoulRebel]

Any notions of purity in Hellenistic religion are demolished by works like Cicero's De Natura Deorum. There wasn't even a consensus about what kinds of things the gods are!

It is precisely such anachronistic notions that have consistently turned me off from reconstructionist religions. That's not to say that I haven't been influenced by the ideals of the reconstructist project, but the way it's done so often strikes me as being incredibly (and anachronistically) closed-minded. It is frowned upon, for instance, to worship gods from pantheons that weren't historically worshipped by the same people. Which strikes me as extremely odd, given the prevalence of syncretism in the ancient world.

It's as if most reconstructionists--or at least, the most outspoken seemingly influential ones--end up keeping the traditions, but ignore the attitudes that laid behind them.

And that is precisely the reason I describe my method of practise as "reconstructionist" -- ideas/attitudes and traditions should go hand-in-hand. It does no good to rebuild only part of something and then fill in the gaps with a mismatched material. One can go one and on about what reconstructionism "really" is, but it's not even a word defined by the Oxford Standard English Dictionary, so obviously its common use is inherently far more subjective than words used by far more than a comparative handful of people. The vocal minority does not outweigh those who see a method of practise that is simply incompatible with dogmatic rhetoric.



Actually, H...I think it's the other way around. The Recons that hold to the Traditions are actually living the worldview of the ancients, in terms of what it was to be a Hellene...at the core...which is ethics.

It is much more narrow minded to blow off what it is to be Hellene so that you can practice whatever you want and cling to a label that doesn't apply.

If ethics is the core, then what does practise matter? Apples and Volkswagons, Lisa.



In terms of syncretism, I think you are confused as to what it is. Syncretism (at least with the Greeks) is not the acceptance of worshiping different Gods, it is the the understanding and identification of foreign Gods with Greek Gods. Zeus is always Zeus, and the associations were always more on the level theological theory than practice.

That doesn't mean that other Gods don't exist, though. Apollon, for example, may have many equivalencies with Lugh (of the Gaelig pantheon), but He also has many with Aengus Og (of the same). That does not mean that Apollon is anything other than Apollon; but that also doesn't mean that Lugh and Aengus Og are not real.



YSR....It's actually you that are providing the Strawman in this argument.

Not when I know what you're talking about.



As of now, I'm the only one that has provided any sort of academic sources that back up my opinion.

A bulletted list that cites dictionaries, two Pagan websites written by admitted laypersons, and your bestest buddy's blog does not make your answer "academic".



Also...I'm not really understanding what your beef is if you are not defending Occultism, Esotericism, Neopaganism, and New Ageism being included within Hellenismos, especially since your claims about "Classical Athenian practice" and "Julianic purity" is false?

Then why are you argueing?



Which ethics? Aristotle's? Plato's? Epicurus'? Zeno the Stoics'?

There was a great deal of disagreement among the ancient Greeks as to what the Good is, and hence there were many fundamentally different ethical systems practiced by the Greeks. Indeed, to be a follower of a school of philosophy--and thus to be engaged in such disputes--was considered to be praiseworthy.

Very much agreed. This alone is all the argument needed to efute the notion of a "core of ethics" when the ethics themselves are not clearly or universally defined. Having a core of practise at least makes some measure more sense, but there is a wealth of practise to build upon.



To say that the associations were more on the level of theological theory than practice is simply false. Observe the spread of the Isis cult through the Mediterranean area even into Rome. While Isis was identified variously with several goddesses--Demeter, Cybele, Aphrodite--there was no firm, definite association. It would not be inappropriate to say that her identification with pre-existing Greek deities was purely theoretical. In practice, she was worshiped as Isis. The followers of the cult were referred to as Isiakoi.

Exactly! I think I'm going to friend you for this.

The Cult of Isis is a perfect example of how religious syncreticism is more than a mere exercise in association between pantheons. When in words, a God or Goddess is associated with more than one other God or Goddess, and in practise is worshipped as themselves, then the answer is clear.

Wikipaedia (at the current time, anyway) defines religious syncretism as thus:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syncretism#Religious_syncretism
Religious syncretism exhibits blending of two or more religious belief systems into a new system, or the incorporation into a religious tradition of beliefs from unrelated traditions.

dictionary.com defines "syncretism" as "reconciliation or union of two different things". Lisa's attempt to redefine syncretism as a mere exercise in associations is intellectually dishonest; it's not the traditional, academic definition of syncretism that is easily found all over not only the Internet, but in loads and loads of secondary (academic) sources.



I'm also unclear as to why you feel the need to debate what is and is not Hellenismos when you've already stated your aversion to Reconstructionism. Are you here to muddy the water because of your own biases? Just curious.

Your statement assumes that Hellenismos and "reconstrcutionism" are one in the same. They are not. Hellenismos is a religion, reconstructionism is a method.



My problem is not with reconstructionism as a project or an ideal. I am merely frustrated with the way it is so often carried out.

Ah, but while I, too, have issue with that which I see in some of the more... vocal proponents of "Hellenic reconstructionism", I don't see how abstaining from describing my method of practise as "reconstructionist" at their core will do any bit of good. It's like a friend of mine, S, said of another girl in a feminist group: The other girl, A, was constantly being bombarded with accusations of how her ideals were "inherently not feminist", so A then said "OK then, I'm not a feminist! You keep the word and I'll keep my ideals!" S's reply to that was "you're not making Feminism any better by removing yourself from the term, in fact, you may aide in making it worse."



I am deeply saddened and dismayed that what started out as an interesting discussion has veered off topic into personal attacks. I had hoped that we could come together and discuss the subject and recognize what we agree on, not fixate on how we might disagree.

I'm reminded of a proverb:

1 Greek = Opinionated
2 Greeks = Debate
3 Greeks = Fight
4 Greeks = War
5 Greeks = Family

...I've noticed that this is true even of those who are only "Greek" spiritually.

I also think I've seen similar said about the Irish, and yet it boggled my father that some anthropologists theorise that the "black Irish" are actually Greek in origin.



Hellenismos- A moot point I don't bother disscussing anymore. Too sticky.
However, I believe it directly means 'The hellenic way' which could be interpreted in so many ways ....

Well, see, I think that's a perfect reason to use it. I mean, take "Christianity" -- considering the hundred or so sects of Christianity, several of which actively hate each-other, many of which can't even agree on whether or not Jesus was God or Man or Both, it would seem unfitting that "Christianity" is used to describe Catholics, Pentecostals, Quakers, Jehovah's Witnesses, and (to those more liberal with the application of the term) Mormons (who believe that a prophet came post-Christ, when all other sects believe that the coming of Christ negated the need for a prophet until the second coming of Christ -- unlike Muslims, Mormons believe that Christ was Divine) and Rastefarians (who believe that the second coming has already happened).



Neopagan- *dodges flying pointy objects* Now...I know I'm about to get KILLED by everyone. But I see us as neopagans. My objection with being called neopagan is often related to connotations people add to it.
Dictionary definition:

*A modern adherent of pre christian religion
*A believer in a modernized version of the principles of old pre-Christian religions

I'm not killing you. :-)

"Neopagan" is like many other terms; it has several different implications and meanings, depending on the context in which it's used. Some may intend it in a wholly pejorative light, and that may be their right to choose such a manner of speaking, but it's also incorrect. To expect all people who use the word in general to adhere to such a narrow and wholly pejorative definition is intellectually dishonest. Yes, words have meanings for a reason, but English is a living language and so words used in English largely have the meanings that users ascribe to those words.

[YoungSoulRebel]

Funny how this forum is only active whenever there's an argument to be had... *sigh*

It has been said by men who came before me that Greeks just argue for the sheer enjoyment of it.



I think my biggest point would be that these terms are NOT interchangeable, as some would have them be. Not every word beginning with "Hellen-" is specifically referencing Hellenic Reconstructionism. In fact most of these words had their definitions long before anyone tried resurrecting the old religions, or even just the worship of the old gods.

[snip]

IMO the strict narrowing of these definitions is little more than "one-true-way-ism," a concept foreign to the very religion we claim to be reconstructing. It only serves to divide the wider community with arguments and create an "us vs. them" mentality that I feel is damaging to the faith overall. I see no reason or justification for Recons to lay sole claim to words that have been in use long before we existed. And I also see no reason to essentially demonize the actual neopagans and "New Agers" in the process; they should be our allies in protecting the religious freedom of all faiths, not something to be avoided like the plague, lest we be somehow "contaminated." :rolleyes

That's my two cents on the matter... Your mileage may vary. In fact, it most likely will. And unlike some people, I'm perfectly fine with that.

I loved your whole post on this, actually (just clipped for space concerns). It's definitely prompted me to refine my own definitions for the sake of clarity. I'd also really love to see the conversation between an Hellenic polytheist, recon or not, and an Orthodox Christian that the former has a greater claim to the term "ethnic Greek/Greek national" than the other. Such terminology is problematic and, as you said, simply fosters an "Us vs. Them" mentality on a different bend to that built by reducing "Neopagan" and "New Ager" to mere slurs.



Hellenic is not a broad term. I've actually shown the definition of what it is.


If we agree that Hellenic means this:

The word Hellenic simply means: of, pertaining to, or characteristic of the ancient Greeks or their language, culture, thought, etc.

...
[snip]

Biased sample! (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/biased-sample.html)

I went to dictionary.com, as well, and scrolling past the highlighted definition (based on Random House Unabridged), I also found:

hellenic
adjective1. of or pertaining to or characteristic of the ancient Greek and Roman cultures; "classical mythology"; "classical [syn: classical (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/classical)] 2. relating to or characteristic of the classical Greek civilization 3. of or relating to or characteristic of Greece or the Greeks or the Greek language; "Greek mythology"; "a Grecian robe" [syn: Greek (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Greek)]
noun1. the Hellenic branch of the Indo-European family of languages [syn: Greek (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Greek)]


WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.

Hellenic
Hel*len"ic\ (?; 277), a. [Gr. ?, ?, fr. ? the Greeks.] Of or pertaining to the Hellenes, or inhabitants of Greece; Greek; Grecian. "The Hellenic forces." --Jowett (Thucyd. ).



Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.[/i]

That seems pretty broad to me.

The Oxford English Dictionary (the standard English-language dictionary for most of the world) defines "Hellenic" as simply "Greek": http://www.askoxford.com/results/?view=dict&freesearch=Hellenic&branch=13842570&textsearchtype=exact

If you truly believe that "just throwing one or two Greek gods into it doesn't make in Hellenic" then by that logic, throwing only one dictionary-definition into an argument doesn't adequately define a word. This is your logic at work here!

[Twinkle]

YSR, you do know you are just rambling at this point, don't you? Your expanded dictionary definition from dictionary.com does not conflict with anything I wrote. You are still trying to misrepresent what I actually provided, which included definitions from other "Hellenic" and Neopagan websites, and in-print academic sources. You have provided nothing but an opinion based on what you want, rather than what is.

You also continue to contradict yourself stating that you don't support the idea of Occultism, Esotericism, Neopaganism, and New Ageism being included within Hellenismos, but use a definition that is so broad and inclusive that you can't argue against those practices and still have your own definition be correct. You love claiming *other* people's logic is flawed, but you really need to start looking in the mirror.

If you think "winning" this debate means you getting the last word in have at it. I'm tired of the hate and anger coming off you. You and your friends did the same thing on the Hellenic_Recon Yahoo group, and tried to do the same thing on Therapon's Olympianism group. You just mindlessly bicker, bicker, and bicker for no other reason than hating Tim, and then when Tim lost it, got banned on Hellenic_Recon for calling a spade a spade, and the other Recons (on an actual Recon list) got sick on you and your "friends", you went quiet. I agree with Tim on this one. It is a shame you deceived Robert into thinking you actually had some real interest in his list and reviving Elaion, only to abandon the list once your mission of quieting the Recons was accomplished.

So, I guess you win again. There is no debating or discussing with someone who's only goal is to out-talk.

[Hylomorphic]

I was not asking for a basic description of each approach to ethics, I was asking for fundamental differences and similarities.Do you really not think that their approaches to ethics had no practical consequences? Their approaches were fundamentally different. Hence, they result in fundamentally different kinds of ethics.

Epicurean ethics were starkly in contrast to the political life. To be involved in politics was to take on a whole range of problems that could be avoided merely by moving out of the city (as Epicurus did). Aristotelian ethics, on the other hand, focused on explicitly political virtues. (The relationship of Aristotle's virtues to the polis is explored by many writers, such as Alisdair MacIntyre. On a related tangent, MacIntyre's book After Virtue also spends a chapter or two making the argument that Aristotle and Plato were responding to moral confusion in Athens.)

Epicureanism and Stoicism are diametrically opposed. They literally have nothing in common. For the Stoics, reason has priority. For the Epicureans, the use of reason is merely a means to reaching ataraxia. Epicureans seek pleasure, while Stoics eschew it entirely.

Stoic ideals, as I said before, are considered unvirtuous from within Aristotelian ethics--hence, Stoic practice is, as well.


For instance, you state for Epicurus seeking pleasure brought on pain and worry far out of proportion to the pleasure gained (your example was a hangover after a night of drinking), but Aristotle made similar statements in Nicomachean Ethics, that pleasure was a complement to our activities not a goal, and Plato stated in The Republic that uncontrolled wants for pleasure causes a person to become a slave and brought suffering.Epicurus' statement may be superficially similar to Plato's and Aristotle's, but is in fact very different. Pleasure is always the goal for Epicurus. Not so for Plato and Aristotle.

To say that pleasure is not a goal for Aristotle is not entirely correct. To follow Aristotle's ethics is to cultivate the individual such that good acts are naturally pleasurable, and the amount of pleasure one gets is commensurate with the goodness of the act. Hence, for Aristotle, eating food and drinking wine are good things in and of themselves, since they satisfy the appetitive part of the soul. However, to gain too much pleasure from them is to let the appetitive part of the soul rule the person.

Plato is somewhat similar to Aristotle in that they both view over-appreciation of physical pleasures as disordered. Nonetheless, they locate the good in very different places--for Aristotle, the virtuous life is good in itself insofar as it is the most comfortable, the most pleasurable, the most desirable, and the most constant. He, unlike Plato and the Stoics, allowed that the goodness of that life could be impaired by external occurrences--the death of a family member, being ruined by political rivals, etc. Plato, on the other hand, locates the good as being abstract and non-physical. While Aristotle claims the political life to be good in and of itself, Plato asserts that, while it is superior to a life lived in pursuit of pleasure, it is by no means the best. Rather, it is a counterfeit of the good, which can only be attained to by contemplation by the soul.

Platonic asceticism is exemplified in Socrates in the Symposium. His opinion is not solicited in the decision whether or not the party shall have hard drinking, for he can "drink or abstain" with equal pleasure. It is mentioned that, in war, he took no thought for the tiredness of his body or threats to his physical well-being. It is recounted that, when an attender of the party had attempted to seduce him, he was absolutely unmoved by the prospect of physical pleasure.

This would be considered unvirtuous by Aristotle, and foolish by Epicurus.


Again, nothing that is really in a fundamental conflict with the others. Of course there were some differences in approach, but I'm not seeing where you are coming up with the idea they were independent and distinct ethical systems, or even systems in great conflict with the greater ethics of ancient Greek society.The point I'm trying to make is that there was no "greater ethics" of ancient Greek society, any more than there is a "greater ethics" of the Western world today.

Look at Athens just after the Peloponnesian war. Plato's dialogues give us insight into the state of moral thought at that time. It was, as Socrates constantly pointed out, confused and the subject of much dispute. For example, let's look at the beginning of the Republic. The central question is given: "What is justice?" There are numerous answers given by those in the crowd--giving what is owed, doing good to friends and harm to enemies, and even--as Thrasymachus bursts out--that the just is whatever the most powerful man says it is. One may also look at the diversity of views of love in the Symposium.

And that was diversity within one city. The diversity in the Greek-speaking world at large was much greater.

To be sure, there was a general horizon of Greek norms and values--a Greek way of life in general--by which all these ethical systems oriented themselves. But that is not the same as saying that there was some pan-Hellenic ethics. Ethical practice and theory were far too varied among the ancient Greeks for that assertion to stand scrutiny.



I'm sorry you are insulted by me asking to source the basis of your opinion, but this *is* the internet, and claims of a bachelor's degree in philosophy or a thesis on Aristotelian ethics means nothing, especially when all you are giving is very basic information anyone can find on the net, and not demonstrating an in-depth insight.

:eyebrow:

Well, yes, I'm presenting basic information. The schools of thought I mentioned are fundamentally different on a very basic level.

Really now, there's not much room for displaying "in-depth insight" when trying to correct the impression that Epicurean and Platonic ethics are substantially in agreement.


Additionally, Ammon was an epithet of Zeus. Zeus Ammon was worshiped as Zeus, not the Egyptian Amun. You completely miss what syncretism is.

And you completely miss the thrust of my argument. You said that the syncretism was "almost always" more theoretical than practical. I have been offering examples that show the opposite. (Isis, by the by, was too significant an element of Hellenistic religion to be merely considered the exception that proves the rule. After the eruption of Vesuvius, for example, the temple of Isis was rebuilt even before the temple of any Olympian.)

Zeus Ammon is not merely given a different name, but is portrayed differently--with ram's horns. Greek worshipers of Zeus Ammon were known to visit the oracles of Amun in Egypt. Syncretism was not merely theoretical, but had a profound impact on the practice of Hellenistic religion.


Again, with both Zeus and Isis you are not demonstrating anything that cannot be quickly googled, and lacks insight and understanding of the information. I can see why you don't favor Reconstructionism.

Absolutely correct. Which is why I acquired a Latin version of Ovid's Metamorphoses so I could study it in the original language. How lazy of me.

[Twinkle]

Hylomorphic:


...no practical consequences? What? Different approaches do not equate to fundamentally different or conflicting ideals. This is exactly why I asked to provide the basis on your opinion, and your vague reference to Alisdair MacIntyre does not support your diametrically opposed assertion. Let's just look at what you wrote. You state that Epicurus' statement are only superficially similar to Plato and Aristotle's, and then seem to want to imply your insight goes beyond the primary texts. You state that within Platonism to "drink or abstain" can be seen as giving equal pleasure, are you then trying to imply that Epicurus' states only drink can provide pleasure? Where does he say that?

You also state that Aristotle is at odds with Plato's assertion that contemplation is the supreme path to the Good, but Aristotle states both that "...those to whom contemplation more fully belongs are more truly happy, not as a mere concomitant but in virtue of the contemplation; for this is in itself precious. Happiness, therefore, must be some form of contemplation," and "...that all these attributes belong most of all to the philosopher is manifest. He, therefore, is the dearest to the gods. And he who is that will presumably be also the happiest; so that in this way too the philosopher will more than any other be happy."

Disagreements and differing approaches does not equate to diametrically opposed and fundamentally different ethics or ideals. They may seem to be fundamentally different from within the microcosm of the Hellenic worldview, but looking at Hellenic thought as a whole they are more the same than they are different.

Also, the examples you are offering to "show the opposite" of my statement syncretism was more theoretical than practical does not do that. First, the idea that Isis was "was too significant" cannot really been said since she came into the religion late, if you could even call it coming into the religion. Your other statement, along that line, that this significance proves she is not merely an exception that proves the rule is just flat wrong. She was unusual, which mean she is an exception to the rule, and one of only a very few foreign cults that can be said to have had public credibility. Of course, slaves and foreigners were allowed to have their own places or worship for their Gods, but to say those were part of the Greek religion is baseless. Would you also argue that Christianity, Judaism, the Roman Imperial Cult, Mithraism, and other foreign elements are included within your very broad definition of the Hellenic religion?

And do you seriously believe that different epithets denote different Gods? ...that Zeus Maemactes is a different God from Zeus Basileus or Zeus Prostropaios? Where did you get that idea?

One final thing, with Ovid's Metamorphoses this is the second time you referenced a Roman writer. Are you confused about what we are talking about here? You do know that Hellenismos and Religio Romana are different religions, right?


I'm going to say the same thing to you that I said to YSR, if the only goal is to out-talk, and you are going to refuse to support opinions, then I have no time for you either, Mr. Black. I've played your game before, and this is exactly why Tim insisted on his discussion guidelines for Hellenismos.us. It is also why he stated that he has "no responsibility to build a consensus and compromise with those who are an obstacle" to reestablishing the Hellenic religion, and he would not allow "silly debates... with people who have no real interest in the Hellenic religion" on his website. People who just want to bicker are counterproductive.

[Hylomorphic]

You state that within Platonism to "drink or abstain" can be seen as giving equal pleasure, are you then trying to imply that Epicurus' states only drink can provide pleasure?

Not at all. Why would you infer that? I was comparing Plato and Aristotle at that point, not Plato and Epicurus.


You also state that Aristotle is at odds with Plato's assertion that contemplation is the supreme path to the Good, but Aristotle states both that "...those to whom contemplation more fully belongs are more truly happy, not as a mere concomitant but in virtue of the contemplation; for this is in itself precious. Happiness, therefore, must be some form of contemplation," and "...that all these attributes belong most of all to the philosopher is manifest. He, therefore, is the dearest to the gods. And he who is that will presumably be also the happiest; so that in this way too the philosopher will more than any other be happy."

That is not, in fact, what I said. I said that Plato denies that pleasures play a role in the virtuous life, while Aristotle affirms the assertion.

The passages you cite, however, are problematic for Aristotle. They seem to contradict previous passages in the Nicomachean Ethics, as Aristotle seems aware. There is a tension in his thought between the virtues of character and practical reason (frequently translated as prudence, though this is less appropriate to the modern sense of "prudence"), and the virtues of the intellect. This tension mimicks the tension between the irrational and the rational part of man, and while Aristotle recognizes that the rational part should rule, he also points out that the philosopher and the educator ignore the irrational part at their peril. It is not entirely clear, however, how we are to resolve the conflict. At the very least, Aristotle must recognize that the ethics of the philosophers, the ethics of the statesmen, and the ethics of the many must all be in conflict to some degree.

In any case, my argument is not based solely on the difference between Aristotelian ethics and Platonic ethics. Were these the only two major schools of thought, then you might well be correct in asserting that there is something like an ethics that is characteristic of Greek thought--or at least, Athenian thought.


Disagreements and differing approaches does not equate to diametrically opposed and fundamentally different ethics or ideals. They may seem to be fundamentally different from within the microcosm of the Hellenic worldview, but looking at Hellenic thought as a whole they are more the same than they are different.

Note that I did not state that all of these philosophies are diametrically opposed. I only said that about Epicureanism and Stoicism. To be sure, they both say that the man who follows their teachings will attain eudaimonia.

However, the good man for Epicureanism is the man who most effectively avoids pain and anxiety, while the good man for Stoicism is the man who faces pain and anxiety without flinching. These are diametrically opposed ethical systems.

And these were, by first century CE, two of the most popular and respected schools of thought.

I'm not saying that there weren't shared values and ideals among the Greeks. I am saying that they had nothing as static, self-consistent, or systematic as a shared "ethics." Rather, Greek thought involved a sustained effort to grapple with the contradictions and conflicts resulting from varying interpretations of those values as they were applied in varying contexts.

This is true, by the by, of any culture. One can find similar stark contrasts within American culture. Just as the Spartans and Athenians had very different ideas about what it was to be a good Greek, so too an East Coast liberal lawyer will dispute with a Midwestern conservative farmer about what it means to be an American.

Just as there is no American ethic, but a plurality of American ideals and values interpreted in different ways, there was no Greek ethic, but Greek values and ideals.


Also, the examples you are offering to "show the opposite" of my statement syncretism was more theoretical than practical does not do that. First, the idea that Isis was "was too significant" cannot really been said since she came into the religion late, if you could even call it coming into the religion. Your other statement, along that line, that this significance proves she is not merely an exception that proves the rule is just flat wrong. She was unusual, which mean she is an exception to the rule, and one of only a very few foreign cults that can be said to have had public credibility. Of course, slaves and foreigners were allowed to have their own places or worship for their Gods, but to say those were part of the Greek religion is baseless. Would you also argue that Christianity, Judaism, the Roman Imperial Cult, Mithraism, and other foreign elements are included within your very broad definition of the Hellenic religion?

The imperial cult and Mithraism were more Roman than Greek, though the distinction between Greek and Roman religion was somewhat blurred at that time, after so many years of adaptation by the Romans of Greek culture.

Even if you're right that the cult of Isis constitutes an exception, it's an awfully striking one, isn't it? It seems to indicate a certain religious flexibility among the Greeks of that period.

Moreover, we must remember that any reconstructionist efforts cannot legitimately reconstruct a state religion. Hence, it is not inappropriate to look to popular religion as well for guidance.


And do you seriously believe that different epithets denote different Gods? ...that Zeus Maemactes is a different God from Zeus Basileus or Zeus Prostropaios? Where did you get that idea?

What I'm trying to propose is that things aren't quite as clear cut as all that. To be sure, many of the epithets of Zeus clearly indicate him as the same god. With others, things are more fuzzy--it almost seems that his worship approaches the worship of a very different god in practice, while the association of that worship with the larger Greek worship of Zeus becomes mostly theoretical.



One final thing, with Ovid's Metamorphoses this is the second time you referenced a Roman writer. Are you confused about what we are talking about here? You do know that Hellenismos and Religio Romana are different religions, right?

Well, duh.

I earlier mentioned De Natura Deorum by Cicero, which attempts to transmit authentic Greek philosophy and theology to a wider Latin-speaking audience--with a fair degree of success, it must be admitted.

With regard to Ovid, I must remind you that I have only said I have a great deal of sympathy for the reconstructionist project. I did not reveal which area of reconstruction I was most interested in--as it happens, Roman religion circa the late Republic and early Empire. Hence Ovid's relevance.

It should be noted that an adequate understanding of Roman religion in that period requires understanding Hellenistic religion and how it affected Roman practice and attitudes.



I'm going to say the same thing to you that I said to YSR, if the only goal is to out-talk, and you are going to refuse to support opinions, then I have no time for you either, Mr. Black. I've played your game before, and this is exactly why Tim insisted on his discussion guidelines for Hellenismos.us. It is also why he stated that he has "no responsibility to build a consensus and compromise with those who are an obstacle" to reestablishing the Hellenic religion, and he would not allow "silly debates... with people who have no real interest in the Hellenic religion" on his website. People who just want to bicker are counterproductive.

(Mr. Black? Is that supposed to be some kind of reference to Reservoir Dogs?)

I'm perplexed by your apparent implication that I'm only interesting in "out-talking," and that I am going to "refuse to support my opinions." I've spent a fairly substantial amount of time, for a forum discussion, on providing support for my arguments--time spent thinking about them, making the details of my argument clear, and double-checking my sources.

My goal is not to "out-talk," but rather to convince and persuade the people following this discussion that an uncritically emulatory approach to reconstructionism ignores some important aspects of ancient religion and culture. (Though I do believe that there are some philosophical issues with that approach to reconstructionism as well; adapting an ancient religion to a modern culture requires more than just substituting English for Greek and eschewing animal sacrifice.)

[Twinkle]

Have you spent a fairly substantial amount of time on providing support for your arguments? You double checked your sources? Really? What sources? All I see is personal opinion, after personal opinion, after personal opinion without ever citing anything as the basis of those opinions. Again, I am the only one who has cited or quoted anything, with the most resent post quoting Aristotle (from Nicomachean Ethics, Book X, 8).

Frankly, it is shocking that the quote took a philosophy major, and one who wrote a thesis on Aristotle, by surprise. There is not tension in his thought if you take his work as a whole and do not selectively choose and interpret (or misinterpret) passages to fit personal opinion. You seem to want to claim some substantial knowledge of things, but in regard to Isis make the statement that the Imperial Cult and Mithraism were more Roman than Greek, never realizing or acknowledging that the Isis Cult overall also probably has more to do with the Romans than the Greeks. Your statement that many of the epithets of Zeus clearly indicate him as one God, but with others it seems to have the epithets as different Gods is based nothing but what you want to argue than anything else. The fact is different epithets were used in different worship, and you would know this if you studied the religion, household worship verses pubic worship verses oracular sites, and so on. Zeus Ammon, though arguably popular in areas, demonstrates nothing but an understanding that Amun was the Egyptian interpretation of Zeus.

Your attempt to "convince and persuade the people following this discussion" is based on nothing more than an approach at out-talking, and refusing to support opinions with anything but more opinions. All opinions are not equal, especially when they seem based only on peripheral, very limited, or no knowledge. I've been studying the Greek religion too long to be impressed with a person who has lots of opinions, but not a lot of facts.

[YoungSoulRebel]

YSR, you do know you are just rambling at this point, don't you? Your expanded dictionary definition from dictionary.com does not conflict with anything I wrote. You are still trying to misrepresent what I actually provided, which included definitions from other "Hellenic" and Neopagan websites, and in-print academic sources. You have provided nothing but an opinion based on what you want, rather than what is.

Did you actually read any of what you wrote? Cos I'm reading back, and you very clearly claimed that "Hellenic" wasn't broadly defined. I provided examples that disproved this little hypothesis of yours, as yours was based on a biased sample of definition that sered to merely support your purposes (with the implied assumption that nobody would refute it cos its the top definition on dictionary.com).



You also continue to contradict yourself stating that you don't support the idea of Occultism, Esotericism, Neopaganism, and New Ageism being included within Hellenismos, but use a definition that is so broad and inclusive that you can't argue against those practices and still have your own definition be correct. You love claiming *other* people's logic is flawed, but you really need to start looking in the mirror.

How is that contradictory?

Oh wait! I can see how it might seem that way to somebody who has no idea what the differences in all that actually are. Never mind. I'm just talking over you, apparently.



If you think "winning" this debate means you getting the last word in have at it. I'm tired of the hate and anger coming off you. You and your friends did the same thing on the Hellenic_Recon Yahoo group, and tried to do the same thing on Therapon's Olympianism group. You just mindlessly bicker, bicker, and bicker for no other reason than hating Tim, and then when Tim lost it, got banned on Hellenic_Recon for calling a spade a spade, and the other Recons (on an actual Recon list) got sick on you and your "friends", you went quiet. I agree with Tim on this one. It is a shame you deceived Robert into thinking you actually had some real interest in his list and reviving Elaion, only to abandon the list once your mission of quieting the Recons was accomplished.

Now it's my fault that Timmy got banned from Hellenic_Recons? You know better than that, Lisa. In fact, you were on that list at the time, and so you should remember that Robert Clarke banned Tim for beligerence, personal attacks, and personal e-mail to Robert that Robert felt were "abusive". It's cute that you're trying to take advantage of the fact that Robert's list is private in an attempt to paint Timmy as the poor widdew victim of some big meanie-mo's who just drove him off, but the truth is that anybody who was there at the time (or there now, and just feeling industrious-enough to read the backlogue) will know that you're just making crap up in a half-ditched attempt at poisoning the well (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html) and back-handed personal attacks (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/personal-attack.html).

The fact of the matter is, I've supported what I've said but because you don't like my sources or my answers, you don't accept it and throw around baseless accusations and fallacious logic in a rather poor attempt to discredit what I'm saying (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html). That's not "double talk" or "snivelling (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=snivelling)" or whatever new buzz-word you're calling it this week, it's just an argument that you disagree with, so you refuse to accept it as valid. Sorry, Lisa, but just because all ways from Seattle will not lead to NYC doesn't mean that there's only One True Way from Seattle to NYC.

You're a funny little woman with a funny little sense of reality.

[Son of Goddess]

I'm a member of Hellenic Recon, I'll check it out. If I remember correctly, I posted a few times in that big discussion...

Whoops nevermind, I thought it was Hellenic Recon, I'm a member of Hellenic Pagan

[~Elise~]

Quit taking attacks from one thread to another and, worse yet, one board to another. One more post like this and you're on a temporary hiatus from the site.


Did you actually read any of what you wrote? Cos I'm reading back, and you very clearly claimed that "Hellenic" wasn't broadly defined. I provided examples that disproved this little hypothesis of yours, as yours was based on a biased sample of definition that sered to merely support your purposes (with the implied assumption that nobody would refute it cos its the top definition on dictionary.com).




How is that contradictory?

Oh wait! I can see how it might seem that way to somebody who has no idea what the differences in all that actually are. Never mind. I'm just talking over you, apparently.




Now it's my fault that Timmy got banned from Hellenic_Recons? You know better than that, Lisa. In fact, you were on that list at the time, and so you should remember that Robert Clarke banned Tim for beligerence, personal attacks, and personal e-mail to Robert that Robert felt were "abusive". It's cute that you're trying to take advantage of the fact that Robert's list is private in an attempt to paint Timmy as the poor widdew victim of some big meanie-mo's who just drove him off, but the truth is that anybody who was there at the time (or there now, and just feeling industrious-enough to read the backlogue) will know that you're just making crap up in a half-ditched attempt at poisoning the well (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html) and back-handed personal attacks (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/personal-attack.html).

The fact of the matter is, I've supported what I've said but because you don't like my sources or my answers, you don't accept it and throw around baseless accusations and fallacious logic in a rather poor attempt to discredit what I'm saying (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html). That's not "double talk" or "snivelling (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=snivelling)" or whatever new buzz-word you're calling it this week, it's just an argument that you disagree with, so you refuse to accept it as valid. Sorry, Lisa, but just because all ways from Seattle will not lead to NYC doesn't mean that there's only One True Way from Seattle to NYC.

You're a funny little woman with a funny little sense of reality.

[Hylomorphic]

Have you spent a fairly substantial amount of time on providing support for your arguments? You double checked your sources? Really? What sources? All I see is personal opinion, after personal opinion, after personal opinion without ever citing anything as the basis of those opinions.

Leaving aside Book X of the NE, would you call my characterizations of the major schools of Greek philosophy inaccurate? You haven't, on the whole, seen fit to question them.


Frankly, it is shocking that the quote took a philosophy major, and one who wrote a thesis on Aristotle, by surprise. There is not tension in his thought if you take his work as a whole and do not selectively choose and interpret (or misinterpret) passages to fit personal opinion.

* shrugs *

It didn't exactly take me by surprise. The difficulties were pointed out to me two years ago. Much of the controversy is the result not simply on the NE, but on how it interacts with Aristotle's larger philosophy (especially his ideas about teleology and final causes).

My comments on that were more an aside than anything else; as you'll notice, they were followed by the concession that, were my case based solely on the differences between Aristotelian ethics and Platonic, it would fall flat.


You seem to want to claim some substantial knowledge of things, but in regard to Isis make the statement that the Imperial Cult and Mithraism were more Roman than Greek, never realizing or acknowledging that the Isis Cult overall also probably has more to do with the Romans than the Greeks.

I was, in fact, aware that the Isis cult had a substantial following in Rome and Roman colonies, and apparently significantly more popularity than in Greece.

For this to hurt my argument, however, it must also be true that the Isis cult did not have a significant following among the Hellenes.


Your statement that many of the epithets of Zeus clearly indicate him as one God, but with others it seems to have the epithets as different Gods is based nothing but what you want to argue than anything else.

It was really more based on the visits of worshipers of Zeus Ammon to the oracles of Amun in Egypt, the reaction of Alexander the Great to his reception by worshipers of Amun (and the practice after his death of sometimes depicting him with the horns of Amun/Ammon), etc.

What I'm trying to indicate is that things aren't as clear cut when modes of worship for one god get mixed in with modes of worship for another god. There seems to be a continuum in ancient Greek religious practice running from pure Greek worship (as understood by the Greek city-states after they each had more or less settled pantheons and modes of worship) and almost pure foreign worship, as in the case of Isis, with very little use of the dominant Greek traditions. Somewhere in the middle were well-accepted traditions that blended foreign styles of worship with native Greek styles.

To be sure, it seems to be the case that, when possible, the Greeks interpreted foreign gods in terms of their own. This seems to have broken down in some cases, though. A closer look at how and when this occured, with an eye to dissecting why it occurred, is essential to understanding under what circumstances it might or might not be acceptable for a reconstructionist.

A knee-jerk reaction against such inquiry to preserve purity of dogma or praxis is not helpful.

[Twinkle]

I did question your descriptions. Not that they were necessarily wrong, but that they are basic peripheral descriptions that anyone could have pooled from a google search, and did not address my question to you. You claim to have a degree in philosophy. You claim to have wrote a thesis on Aristotelian ethics. You claim to have double checked your sources before posting your opinions, sources that you still do not provide, yet you write about this subject like a novice. You still have not proved your diametrically opposed idea, or supported it. Your way of thinking would conclude that Catholics and Baptists are diametrically opposed, which may seem the case from within Christendom, but in an analysis of Christendom as a whole they share more in common than they disagree with each other. Again, disagreements and differing approaches do not equate to diametrically opposed and fundamentally different ethics or ideals, only diametrically opposed and fundamentally different ethics equate to diametrically opposed and fundamentally different ethics or ideals.


With Isis, you continue to prove that your opinions are based on nothing but what you want to argue, rather than facts. Not only did the Isis cult have a substantial following in Rome and Roman colonies, but the cult Empire wide was financed and controlled by the Roman government. A little fact you missed, and I'm sure Son of Goddess would be able to expand on for you since the Roman Religion & history is more his area. That your opinions are based on nothing but what you want to argue, rather than facts, is also the case with Zeus Ammon, who was worshiped by Alexandrian Greeks as the Greek Zeus, in the Greek way, not a mixed of modes of worship for another god. See Divinity and History: The Religion of Herodotus by Thomas Harrison, Oxford 2000, especially page 217:


"A clear line is also drawn at worshipping foreign gods. . . . Greek festivals, of course, were limited to Greeks. The Greeks in Egypt likewise required the Hellenion; the Aeginetans, the Samians, and the Milesians built their own shrines there to Zeus, Hera, and Apollo respectivly. The belief in the identity of one's own and others' gods is all very well in theory - but not in practice. When foreigners do attempt to propitiate Greek gods, it is frequently the case that no good comes of it."
Look at that, another quoted source by me. http://www.mind-n-magick.com/public_html/yabbfiles/Templates/Forum/default/wink.gif



I will repeat my criticism: Your attempt to "convince and persuade the people following this discussion" is based on nothing more than an approach at out-talking, and refusing to support opinions with anything but more opinions. All opinions are not equal, especially when they seem based only on peripheral, very limited, or no knowledge. I've been studying the Greek religion too long to be impressed with a person who has lots of opinions, but not a lot of facts.

[Son of Goddess]

Not only did the Isis cult have a substantial following in Rome and Roman colonies, but the cult Empire wide was financed and controlled by the Roman government. A little fact you missed, and I'm sure Son of Goddess would be able to expand on for you since the Roman Religion & history is more his area.

Yes, you are correct. However, it wasn't until the reign of Caligula that Isis gained official recognition in Rome. Prior to him, both Augustus and Tiberius worked to eliminate the Egyptian cults from the city that were springing up. The Senate at one time ordered the destruction of an Egyptian shrine that people had set up in the city.

The cult of Isis in Rome was highly supported by the Imperial House, several emperors claiming some type of divine favor from Isis or Serapis. As the Imperial cult flourished in Asia Minor, the cult of Isis was bound to be nearby.

I've read all of this in Robert Turcan's Cults of the Roman Empire, I don't have time to pull the quotes now but will do later tonight after work. :thumbsup:

[Hylomorphic]

Your way of thinking would conclude that Catholics and Baptists are diametrically opposed, which may seem the case from within Christendom, but in an analysis of Christendom as a whole they share more in common than they disagree with each other. Again, disagreements and differing approaches do not equate to diametrically opposed and fundamentally different ethics or ideals, only diametrically opposed and fundamentally different ethics equate to diametrically opposed and fundamentally different ethics or ideals.In what way or ways, then, are Epicureanism and Stoicism fundamentally similar?



With Isis, you continue to prove that your opinions are based on nothing but what you want to argue, rather than facts. Not only did the Isis cult have a substantial following in Rome and Roman colonies, but the cult Empire wide was financed and controlled by the Roman government.Is it or is it not the case that the Isis cult had a not insignificant following among the Greeks?


If you want directly cited sources, though:

"Just as in all other respects the Athenians continue to be hospitable to things foreign, so also in their worship of the gods; for they welcomed so many of the foreign rites that they were ridiculed therefore by comic writers; and among these were the Athenian and Phrygian rites. For instance, the Bendideian rites are mentioned by Plato, and the Phrygian by Demosthenes when he casts the reproach upon Aeschines' mother and Aeschines himself that he was with her when she conducted initiations, that he joined her in leading the Dionysiac march, and that many a time he cried out "evoe saboe," and "hyes attes, attes hyes"; for these words are in the ritual of Sabazius and the Mother."

From Strabo's Geography, 10.3.18

The Bendideia, of course, is the festival of the Thracian deity Bendis, frequently associated with Artemis. Strabo refers to the very beginning of the Republic. From that passage:

"Socrates: I went down to the Piraeus yesterday with Glaucon, son of Ariston, to pray with the goddess; and, at the same time, I wanted to observe how they would put on the festival, since they were now holding it for the first time. Now, in my opinion, the procession of the native inhabitants was fine; but the one the Thracians conducted was no less fitting a show. After we had prayed and looked on, we went off toward town."

Oh, dear. Greeks and Thracians worshiping the same goddess... at the same festival no less! Sounds like a recipe for trouble to me.

[Twinkle]

Hylomorphic:


You cannot prove your diametrically opposed and fundamentally different idea is anything but a personal opinion based on a personal opinion, so you are going to challenge me to disprove it? And disprove it even more than I already have? Does that make any sense? You are a supposed philosophy major with a Bachelor's Degree to back you up, but cannot provide one single solitary source to show what your opinions are based on. Through four pages of this thread, I have asked you to support your opinions with something more than talk, and accused you of a debate tactic of just trying to out-talk. You are proving me correct.

It is interesting that since you have been shown wrong about Isis, and wrong on Zeus Ammon, you now want to move on to Bendis, which, in a general sense of foreign Gods, we did discuss, though not specifically this deity. This is not an attempt to out-talk how? Which deity will you bring up next? http://www.mind-n-magick.com/public_html/yabbfiles/Templates/Forum/default/rolleyes.gif

I already stated there are exceptions to the rule, but those exceptions are unusual. The Greeks did incorporate foreign deities, but only to a limited extent, and this really doesn't even prove your piont about syncretism. Do you even know what your point is, or are you arguing at this point just to argue?

The celebration of the Bendideia for the Thracian Goddess Bendis is an example of a foreign deity, yes, but Greek religion retained its ethnic character with only minor exceptions. Also, it has already be agreed that slaves and foreigners where allowed to have their own cults and temples, but there is also The Decree of Diopithes that forbids the belief in and worship of other Gods. By the Golden Age, Greece practiced "purity", and barbarians and worshippers of other Gods were barred from entering into Hellenic temples. (All of this is easily verified, across many many sources. Divinity and History by Thomas Harrison has already been noted, but also see Greek Religion by Walter Burkert, pages 176-179; Greeks and Barbarians by Thomas Harrison, page 131-132, 184; Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece by Nigel Guy Wilson, page 624. Do you want more?)


You keep proving your limited knowledge. Why do you feel the need to be right about this when we both know you don't know? Will giving you the last word help you sleep at night?

[Son of Goddess]

Is it or is it not the case that the Isis cult had a not insignificant following among the Greeks?
----------
Oh, dear. Greeks and Thracians worshiping the same goddess... at the same festival no less! Sounds like a recipe for trouble to me.

I have to agree with Twinkle on this, you are now simply changing the subject from deity to deity without ever being able to really procure any source for the last. Why are you using a source about Bendis to argue your point with Isis? Especially more so that Bendis and Isis are not even the same deity syncretically.

Moving on to my promised quotes on the cult of Isis in Rome...

Vestal Virgins, Sibyls, and Matrons: Women in Roman Religion by Sarolta A. Takacs, University of Texas Press, Austin 2008:

P. 75 Greeks, who had economic links with Egypt since the sevent century BCE, explained Egyptian deities by using analogies :thumbsup:

P. 77 In the last decades of the Roman Republic, the Senate, in control of the integration process of froeign deities, reacted strongly against the cult of Isis. The senate ordered the cult and its adherents expelled. These expulsions took place in 58, 53, and 48 BCE. ... Under Augustus' successor, Tiberius, the cult fo Isis and her adherents were banished from Rome in 19 CE.

P. 78 Isis and her cult were officially recognized at the end of Caligula's or at the beginning of Cladudius' reign

The Cults of the Roman Empire by Robert Turcan, Blackwell Publishing, 1996:

P. 89 Antony's great-grandson [Caligula] had the ISeum that had been demolished on Tiberius' orders rebuilt on the Campus Martius. His chamberlain, the Egyptian Helicon, exerted a constant influence on the empoeror. We know that Caligula 'busied himself with initiations and celebrated the rites of foreign mysteries'. On the day of his death, preparations were being made for a spectacle that evening at which Ethiopians and Egyptians would enact scenes relating to the Underworld. Other indications lead one to think that he celebrated the Isiac ceremonies that were officially attested later and inscribed in the Roman calendar from 28 October to 3 November. henceforth the Alexandrian gods would not have to suffer the slightest snub from the authorities

P. 90 The Egyptian adherence was so strong that in 69--the year of such a grave crisis for the Empire and the regime--Vespasian, proclaimed emperor by the army of the East, received from Serapis a kind of consecration and supernatural recognition. The Nile flooded on the day he entered Alexandria. In the name of the calathophoric god, he restored a blind man's sight and healed a cripple [where have we heard that before...] In the Serapeum where the priests left him alone with the god, Vespasian enjoyed an oracle and a miracle. He was acknowledged by Serapis before the Senate did so. In AD 70, returning to Rome with his son Titus, he spent the night in the temple of Isis on the Campus Martius, before celebrating next day his triumph over Judaea.

...

Nor did Domitian forget that the Isiac costume in which he had fled the burning Capitol, on 19 December AD 69, had shielded him from the attack of Vitellius' partisans. He had the Iseum Campense, which was burnt in 80, rebuilt and embellished. To commemorate this rebuilding, an obelisk, specially cut and engraved on the orders of the emperor, was erected in the sanctuary. On it Domitian is shown crowned by Isis, and the accompanying hieroglyphs glorify the accession of the autokrator 'beloved of Isis and Ptah: may he live like Ra!'

As you can see, those of the Imperial houses definitely had an interest and took a liking to the cult of Isis. Which politically makes sense as Egypt was where the wealth was, those who controlled Egypt controlled the grain supply. By associating themselves with the cult of Isis, the Emperors appealed firstly to the lower classes and foreignors in Rome.

Isis was by far *the* Goddess for the foreignors and other lower classes in Rome. Religio-politically Isis was diametrically opposed to the cult of Magna Mater who held particular importance for the Senate and aristocracy of Rome; prior to the arrival of Isis, Ceres served as the divine proponent of the lower class.

Secondly, and quite plainly, by associating themselves with Isis, the Emperors gained recognition by the native Egyptians.