Category: Civilization, History, and Anthropology

THE REVOLUTION IN THE ANCIENT WORLD Where are aristotle, plato, socrates, zeno, epicurus, roman law, greek mathematics, and the christian destruction of the ancient world in your narrative? The talmud, bible and koran are not an enlightenment but simply the marxism-socialism- postmodernism-feminism of the ancient world: the counter-revolution against reason.The revolution in the ancient world was reason. It was democritus’ atomism, socratic skepticism (failure), platonic idealism(failure), and the success of aristotelian reason, empiricism, proto-science, stoic and epicurean replacement of conflationary religion, and roman law and administration, creating markets for all peoples – but the semites (the equivalent of ghettos) couldn’t grasp that ‘uncontrolled vision’ and sought to restore controlled (feminine) monopoly and conflation using female methods of deceit, and the female method of undermining from within. The revolution in the modern world starts with aesthetics in italy and makes its way into the legal minds who apply it to science producing the anglo revolution (athens). The germans(spartans) reacted by doubling down on it and becoming the worlds best materialists, and the americans inherited both civilizations for a time when the french and russians instigated the third war of german containment. Weak minds need certainty. Mindfulness doesn’t.

by Martin Štěpán: I’ve been listening to Xenophon’s memorabilia. What Socrates appears to be doing is not so much being skeptical but asking exactly the right questions to get the other to get exactly where he wants him to get. But in this, he’s teaching genuinely good values and makes people think about things they really should be thinking about. I’m not seeing the failure.

In my understanding he invented rhetorical falsification. The scale of this innovation, in retrospect, is … it’s conceptually revolutionary. Because he is not trying to deceive. He is trying to create the habit of inquiry. His ‘failure’ was in producing a systematic work. Plato’s systematic work was a train wreck. Aristotle’s systemic work, at least from my perspective, is a reaction against plato’s. When I read aristotle and plato i get the feeling that I have when reading the Abrahamists – it makes me angry. I think Aristotle might have had a similar reaction.

by Martin Štěpán: I remember some of the passages from the Organon that definitely read like a reaction. Plato’s Socrates in the early works is truly just skeptical and contradicts every interpretation so that at the end, nobody is certain of anything. Whereas Aristotle says we have to enumerate possible meanings (serialize?) and inquire which one applies in the context (disambiguate?). Organon ultimately must have been much more important work than all wrong scientific conclusions he came up with. (I didn’t get to Ethics yet.) And yeah, Plato turned Socrates into proto-Jesus.