How To Judge Them

[Lucius Calpurnius Capitolinus]

I think only a fundamentalist religeous nut would.

 

I was thinking about this and it dawned on me that those on the right wing are often refered to as "nuts" and that those on the left are often refered to as "fruits."

 

Nuts on the right, fruits on the left.

 

Hail, Pomona!

[M. Porcius Cato]

I don't belive in a moral law perfect and unchangeble

I think only a fundamentalist religeous nut would.

 

Does that make Plato and Aristotle religious nuts?

[Ursus]

But which view is the correct one, should we be shocked at the habits of people 2000 years ago, look at them as though they knew our world and aimed to appease us, or should we view it from their standards, and the standards of the world around them, to see if that view makes sense, or makes casts what they did in a different light.

 

If I'm reading this right, you're basically giving me two options here:

 

1) I live in the present, thus I have a different moral code than those Ancient Romans. My moral code is based on centuries of "progress" and therefor I view the outlook of the Romans as unenlightened at best, inhumane at worst. Those Romans are simply not to be admired because they are so far divorced from everything we moderns understand as decency.

 

2) I live in the present and am a product of centuries of "progress." My moral code is vastly different than the Romans. Nonetheless I can't judge the people of the past by present moral codes. I can assert a certain temporal relativism, and say whatever happened in the past may not be desirable from a modern standpoint, but may have been excusable within the context of the harsh and ignorant realities of the past.

 

To which PP may have added a third option: History simply is. Whatever subjective moral codes we impose upon the march of history are beside the point. (Nietzsche would applaud, I believe)

 

 

I'll simply add there is a fourth option, though admittedly it will be in the minority opinion. The fourth option does not posit the rigid dichotomy between past moral codes and present moral codes you assume, provided someone in the present honestly internalizes much of the past. There are plenty of old school pagans that find much in the Roman world view to internalize and genuflect and cannot, or will not, draw an inseparable barrier between then and now. Thus it's not a question of "judging" Ancient Rome. If anything, the modern world is judged by the standards set by the Romans.

[Germanicus]

Does that make Plato and Aristotle religious nuts?

 

Seriously - morals change over time, so the notion of a perfect, moral set of laws that never change is redicluous, what are legislators for if not to change or create laws reacting to changes in societies they represent. I can only see that one could not consider it such, if one based ones opinion on an unchanging moral dioctrine - as in from religeon. My use of the term "nuts" was admittadly a little harsh.

 

From the limited reading I have done regarding Plato and Aristotle, and treatments of morality, another thread should probably be started, on some other forum.

[Ursus]

I don't belive in a moral law perfect and unchangeble

I think only a fundamentalist religeous nut would.

 

Does that make Plato and Aristotle religious nuts?

 

 

Somewhat off topic, but Plato at least is not without critics in this regard. Christianity, after it broke from its Jewish roots, certainly evolved in forms inspired by Platonic thought.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Well, I would criticize Plato too. But he's not a fundamentalist religous nut. Nor, for that matter, was Kant--who also believed in timeless and absolute morality.

 

My point is only that it's laziness to criticize a view by claiming that only a nut would believe it. If Plato's view of morality is wrong, point to the error--it's not enough to show that religious nuts come from Plato's tree.

[Germanicus]

My point is only that it's laziness to criticize a view by claiming that only a nut would believe it

 

I didn't say "nut", I said fundimentalist RELIGEOUS nut, take intelligent design for example.........It wasn't laziness, it's an opinion, which I'm entitled to. When I made it I was only thinking about the here and now, so Platonic thought didn't enter the equation. But anyway, off topic, back to the Romans and how people view them.

[caldrail]

I think its impossible to view an ancient culture and judge in their terms. We live 2000 years on in a world that has to piece together the fragments their civilisation left behind. Whilst we're getting more sophisticated about history and archeology, there are huge gaps and we do need to remember that.

 

On the other hand, the romans were people not much different from us. They lived with all the sins and virtues we see today. These days our viewpoint is different. We expect different responses in many situations although much remains the same as it was then.

 

In my younger days I was pretty well useless at history (no sniggering at the back please) because it was all dates, events, and treaties. It just didn't make any sense no matter how well the learned teacher explained them.

 

These days I look at history differently. Although we need to know about dates, events, and treaties, we also need to know the people who made them, why they made them, and why others followed their lead. I think a humanistic approach to history is vital to really understand Rome, simply because so much of their history is personality driven. I'd like to think I've made headway there - I suspect I've got many years to go.

 

But isn't that the fun of it?