C. Fabius Lupus

They work perfectly in a computer program without any neurological basis. Syllogisms are tools that can be used to predict events in the physical world. This is because they have the same underlying principles than the physical world. The physical world could not exist in a stable form without them. This is why they are a priori. They do not need a world to be valid or neurons formed out of physical matter.But since they are abstracta, physical phenomenons have indeed to be encoded into abstract terms. Then the results of the syllogisms have to be decoded back from their abstract form into physical reality. This is what language does. And it does it quite successful, even if natural language is often flawed (e.g. words with ambiguous meanings). They cannot be proven to be incorrect and your example failed to do so too. Using words with dual meanings are a formal logical fallacy called ambiguous middle term that results in a quaternio terminorum. The use of emotionally loaded words is another fallacy (pathos) and the use or threat of physical force is also one (argumentum ad baculum). You have not made a point here by mentioning clear violations of syllogistic rules (fallacies) and showing how they result in incorrect results. This is exactly what logic states: The violation of its rules may lead to incorrect conclusions. I have to assume that you either argue in a sophistic manner for the sake of the argument and to practice your rhetorical skills or you simply have not understood the principles of syllogisms and potential errors in their application. The rhetorical trick you are attemping here is called ignoratio elenchi, opening a new topic, which is irrelevant for the original one. If you show how syllogisms are processed in a brain, it does not contribute anything to the question, whether syllogisms are universally valid or not. BTW I have a Master degree in biology and am therefore not unaware of how neurons work. However I am aware that you simplify mechanisms in the brain that are currently not fully understood. The fact that syllogisms can also be expressed in a geometrical form only strengthens the point that they are universally valid. I have very well understood that your argument was hypothetical and my answer was to this hypothetical statement.It had not mattered what Chryssipus had said about one being a number or not. It makes no difference who is making a statement, a philosopher or a schoolboy. What is a fallacy or not is not decided in an arbitrary manner by any authority. You have to get rid of this concept, if you want to understand how logic works. 1 can be treated as a number and the conclusions do not change he truth value of the premises. Therefore it is no fallacy. Later philosophers would have easily figured that out and have realized that Chryssipus was wrong in this point, supposed they would not have fallen victim to the argumentum ad auctoritas fallacy.

Sorry, I fail to understand what the structure of the brain or personality types have to do with the validity of the laws of logic. There is not even a need for a brain, since logic also applies to dead matter. The physical world will follow the laws of logic regardless if you are able or willing to process them with your brain. It doesn't matter, whether or not Chrysippus declared the number one a fallacy. An argumentum ad auctoritatem is also a fallacy. For something to be a fallacy it is irrelevant, which authority declared it as such. It is either a fallacy or not, i.e. it does not preserve the truth value of the premises or it does. BTW a proposition alone (1 is not a number) cannot be a fallacy. It can only be true or false. Only faulty syllogisms and inferences can be fallacies.

This is a very simplified description of how neurotransmitters and hormones work. Pogroms can either be caused by outbreaks of violent group dynamics or be ordered cold-blooded from behind a desk or both (The guy behind the desk taking advantage of violent predispositions and ressentiments in the population.) Probably it was both in the cases of Nero, Decius or Diocletian. Faith can only be used to exploit emotional predispositions, if the partcular faith is based on sufficient fanaticism. The Abrahamic superstitions are in this regard much better suited for such a purpose than the traditional religions. The lynch mobs allegedly involved in the persecution of Christians were rather motivated by the perceived threat against the state and the Roman society than by faith.

You have a misunderstanding of what logic means. It is a set of rules that can be expressed in symbols and is th basis of every programming language. It is not arbitrary and does not depend on the person or the structure of program code that uses it. You might find it easier to compare it with mathematics. Both are a priori valid and do neither depend on empiric data nor on the personality of the person using it nor on environmental factors. An AAA-1 syllogism or a modus ponens inference are always valid, and a quaternio terminorum is always fallacious. Mating does not equal marriage. To define marriage outside of a legal background is pointless. You could just use the word "mating" without any further misleading implications, if you just mean that. A marriage is commmonly understood to include legal privileges and obligations and it is not necessarily voided if no children are born or no proof of sexual intercourse is provided, although in some few primitive societies this is the case. A definition should not be overly broad or ambiguous. In Rome there were different legally established forms of marriage, the coemptio (divorce possible) and the confarreatio (divorce not easily possible). The latter one was a requirement for certain priests. Both of them were monogamous (no simultanous marriage to more than one partner).

Indeed we have a different definition of monogamy. The biological act of mating is irrelevant for me, since it is beyond control of the corresponding society. What happens behind closed doors is impossible to know or to prevent. For my definition only the legal framework counts. With such different definitions we will of course not reach the same conclusions. A fallacy is an erroneous method of reasoning. It is erroneous no matter how the brain works that is using it, based on different neurochemicals or on semiconductors or whatever. However in our case we are not dealing with a fallacy, as I have come to realize now, but with different definitions right from the beginning. This means it is essentially a communication problem. Regarding the differences between the Catholic and the Roman understanding of a priest: A Catholic has to study theology first, a Roman pontifex was trained on the job - a more pragmatic and less esotheric view of priesthood.

Onasander, did you want to prove my point or did you want to disprove me by changing the definition of monogamy (moving the goalposts fallacy)? All your examples confirm that formal legal marriage was in Europe only between one man and one woman, while among Non-Europeans it was often not. The Christians adopted this custoom due to their fusion with Roman culture. Hence the Copts are monogamous. Informal extramarital affairs (concubines, mistresses, slaves, secret lovers etc.) do not qualify as polygamy, just as successive marriages after divorce or death do not. Only simultanous legal marriages do. Of course not all men in a polygamous society have the chance to marry several women, since there are not enough women available. Normally there are not more female babies born than male babies. Egypt was not strictly monogamous by the way. The best known example might be Ramses II who had eight known royal wives, of which seven are known by name: Nefertare, Istnofret, Bint-Anath, Aerytamun, Nebettawy, Henutmire, Maathomeferure and an unknown Hittite princess that he married after the peace treaty with the Hittites. To summarize my point again: Neither Aristotle nor Octavian nor the Christians established monogamy. It is a cultural pattern of the European peoples (Greeks, Romans, Germans, Celts).

What mechanical and numerical mutations are not explained by mutation? What gaps are there? You are intentionally vague in your comments about evolution. Anyway as a proponent of Intelligent Design the onus probandi is on you. Show us an example where the Intelligent Designer interfered with the laws of nature to change the course, in which DNA developed. Show us this supernatural force at work. If you are interested in the knowledge that ancient Romans had about evolution, you would be better advised to read Lucretius and Epicurus instead of Christian and Neoplatonist authors, whose superstitious beliefs ultimately caused the decline of antique civilization and science.

Monogamy is a pattern of European culture. We find it in Greece (including Sparta, inspite of its institutionalized pederasy) as well as in the Gallic and Germanic tribes and of course in Rome. Even the Stoics had to comply with the legal framework of monogamous marriage, no matter what utopic theories they were developing. Monogamy is not as common among the barbarians. This includes the Middle East and Africa. When Charlemagne practiced polygamy, then it was based on what he had read in the "Old Testament", a book written by Middle Eastern barbarians, whose primimitive religious practices had spread in Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire through a radical Jewish sect known as Christians. European culture is the basis of the monogamous family, not Octavian, not Aristotle and not the Christians. It should not come as surprise that today's crisis of the monogamous family in the West coincides with a new wave of barbarian invaders from the East and South, the unchecked spread of their culture and the postmodern relativism that has undermined European identity. P.S.: I am sorry, if my language is not politically correct, but rectitud politica is not really a Roman virtue.

I think you are overinterpreting this issue a little bit. The family system was important to Augustus, but he cannot be credited for inventing it. And certainly the Stoics would not feel properly represented by the current social changes in the modern Western world. You have for sure touched an important issue, but it is not really connected with the topic of the monarchy during the Principate. However you made an interesting observation regarding the switch from the Principate to the Dominate and how it coincides with Rome losing its status as capital.

Words do not change facts. And for a non-Christian it does not matter, how a Christian calls him. However if someone calls himself by a pejorative name given by another religion, it shows a lack of self-respect and an inconsistency in the own belief system. If a Christian calls himself infidel, because the Mohammedans do so, he would admit the inferiority of his faith and contradict his own conviction to be a believer of the religion that he assumes to be true. I am well aware that Emperor Julian was influenced by his experience with his Christian education. He understood why Christianity was successful and therefore wanted to develop a counter-movement in order to return the Empire to the traditional Roman religion. He was furthermore influenced by Neo-Platonism. So he was not the typical representative of Roman polytheism. But he lived in a time when for the first time there was a necessity to distinguish the religion of classic antiquity from the new religion promoted by his uncle Constantine. This necessity had not existed before. The Christians were just a Jewish sect. But by the time of the Constantinian dynasty, most Christians were no ethnic Jews anymore. So he came up with the distinction of Hellenists vs. Galileans. In antiquity there was no such thing as a pagan, except in the mind of the Christians who had copied this concept from the "gentiles" in Judaism. People did not choose their religion. Religion was always linked to nationality. As a Roman, your nationality was Roman and your religion was Roman. You could not be a Roman by nationality and a Phoenician by religion. The rise of the mystery cults, including Christianity, destroyed this unity. Only from this point on there was the necessity to give religions a distinctive name. The Hellenes were in no way considered pagans or barbarians by the Romans. The deep respect for the Greek culture was visible in the syncretism of the Roman and the Greek pantheon and the high regard, in which Greek philosophy was held. Many Romans followed Stoicism, Epicurism or Platonism. The relation between Romans and Greeks was very much like the relation between Assyrians and Babylonians. Since you recommended the modern Hellenists to sacrifice goats on the altar of Poseidon (supposed they find one), I would like to recommend the Christians of today to kiss the bones of a holy martyr in order to prove their authenticity and their adherence to the original Christian rites of the first centuries. Maybe they will be blessed with a new car then.

The term pagan has always been pejorative and was introduced when Christianity became state religion. It included all non-christian religions. During the Middle Ages even Mohammedans were called pagans or heathens, although their religion was built on Christianity. During the late Empire, when the need arose to distinguish between Christians and non-Christians, Emperor Julian used the term "Hellenist". This seems to be a more proper and neutral name for what the Christians call "pagans". Of course a follower of Isis would call himself "Aegyptian", a follower of Marduk would call himself "Babylonian". A certain nationality implied a particular religion. The idea of following a different religion, independent from nationality, was a new phenomenon introduced by the rise of the mystery cults in Rome and of course Christianity, which was essentially just another mystery cult. If somebody calls himself by the pejorative term "pagan", he tacitly acknowledges Christianity, because without the antonym "Christian" the term makes no sense. He should better call himself "Hellenist" as Emperor Julian did, or whatever pantheon he adheres.

There were at least six major persecutions of Christians before Maximinus Thrax: - under Nero - under Domitian - under Trajan - under Hadrian - under Marcus Aurelius - under Septimus Severus The persecution under Maximinus was neither something new, nor did it stand out in any way. It was followed by further persecutions: - under Decius - under Valerian - under Diocletian

Thank you very much for this detailed answer. I have understood your point, though I cannot fully agree to this interpretation. There is no evidence to support that the assassination of Alexander Severus happened for religious reasons. He had sympathies for the christian religion, but he was no formal member of this cult. The legions disliked him for his appeasement policy when dealing with the Germanic barbarians. This can rather serve as another example how sympathy and tolerance towards christianity led ultimately to a loss of military discipline and the necessary strength to administrate an empire. It was Alexander Severus weakness as an emperor that enabled people like Maximinus Thrax and initiated the Crisis Of The Third Century, as it is more commonly called. You will probably not agree with this interpretation, but different religious backgrounds necesarily lead to different viewpoints about this topic. Nevertheless I have to admit that you have an impressive knowledge about this time and made a convincing point. Thank you again for your elaborated answer.

I wanted to say "new" in comparison to the Tarquinian kings, not new in the history of monarchies. The Tarquinians were still hated even in the time of Caesar and Octavian. So they had to be careful to avoid the title rex or any formal similarities with the former monarchy. It would have been political suicide. This is why it tok so long to establish the formal framework of the principate.

Even if Octavian was no rex (king), he created a new monarchy. His cognomn Augustus became the new title of the monarch under his successors. He called himself princeps, which later became our modern title of prince. I think we could say Octavian's reign was the begining of a new form of monarchy that reached its final shape gradually under his successors. But it is already a monarchy, even while the formal title of the monarch was not fully established.

Salve!You mentioned a first and a second pagan revolt. I have not heard these terms before. What events do they refer to? And regarding the topic, shouldn't the emperors Galba, Otho and Vitellius then be silver too? Their reigns were just as worthless. Vale!

Salvete! I have got a question regarding the tunica worn beneath the toga. The senatorial tunica was called tunica laticlavia. Did this tunica have two broad purple stripes, one over each shoulder similar to the tunica angiclavia of the equestrians, or dit it have one broad stripe on the front and one on the back, from the neck downward? I have seen both versions in different movies and am not sure, which is the corect one. Or did the style change from the Republic to the Empire? Valete!