Theme: Religion

EUROPEAN ARISTOTLE VS SEMITIC ABRAHAMISM
(prelude to understanding the natural law of cooperation absent semitic superstition and primitivism)

Abstract:
Aristotle in proper greek tradition is seeking to advise already good people on how to live better lives, while the abrahamic theology in proper semitic tradition is seeking to advise people who are not good on how to live good lives. You may not like this observation but that does not mean it isn’t true. Why? Sovereign Aristocratic civilization in Europe and Subject Peasant Civilization in the middle east. As such the wisdom literature of each needed to solve the problems distinct to each.

–“The Greek focus on improving the good towards the excellent, and the Abrahamic focus on uplifting the general populace towards goodness”–

Explanation:
The philosophical and theological differences between Aristotle’s ethics and Abrahamic moral teachings reflect the distinct societal structures from which they emerged. Aristotle, addressing a relatively small, elite segment of Greek society, assumes a baseline of rational and ethical competence. His philosophy aims to refine virtues and enhance personal and civic excellence, suitable for an environment where participation in public life and intellectual debate is expected of free citizens.

In contrast, Abrahamic religions developed within more hierarchical and diverse societies, encompassing a broad socioeconomic spectrum. These religions provide explicit moral codes to guide a varied populace towards righteous living, establishing a standardized conduct that can apply universally, irrespective of individual moral starting points. This approach ensures widespread accessibility and applicability, critical in societies with significant variations in education and moral development.

Thus, the Greek tradition is designed for an aristocratic context where the focus is on enhancing existing virtues towards optimal civic and personal function. The Abrahamic tradition, however, operates within a context aiming to elevate a broad population to a basic threshold of righteous behavior, critical for maintaining order and unity across diverse and extensive communities. Each system’s moral guidance is tailored to the specific needs and structures of its society, using laws and ethical teachings as tools to shape and stabilize the community and guide individual conduct.

Detail:
So, there is a profound contrast in philosophical and theological traditions that reflect different social structures and cultural needs. The distinction between the Greek (particularly Aristotelian) and Abrahamic approaches to moral and ethical guidance indeed mirrors the societal and governance systems predominant in their respective regions and historical contexts.

Greek Philosophical Tradition
In Ancient Greece, especially in the works of Aristotle, philosophy was often directed towards a relatively small, educated, elite segment of society. These individuals were typically already engaged in a life where personal virtue and excellence were seen as attainable and desirable. Aristotle’s philosophy assumes a base level of moral competence and rationality, focusing on the refinement of virtues and the pursuit of eudaimonia (flourishing or happiness). The concept of being a good person was tied to being a well-functioning person according to one’s rational nature and social role.

Aristotle’s ethics, therefore, cater to those who are already on the path of moral contemplation, aiming to provide them with the intellectual tools to perfect their virtues. This approach is characteristic of a society where the individual’s role in the polis (city-state) was paramount, and where civic participation and personal excellence were closely intertwined.

Abrahamic Theological Tradition
In contrast, Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) arose in contexts where societies were more diverse and included a wide range of socio-economic statuses and levels of education. These religions often spread among populations that included large numbers of individuals with limited access to formal education and philosophical training. As such, the religious teachings needed to be more universally accessible and applicable to everyday life.

Abrahamic theology typically focuses on laws, commandments, and moral codes that are designed to guide adherents from a broad range of moral starting points towards a life of righteousness and divine obedience. This includes explicit prescriptions and prohibitions intended to manage a diverse populace comprising varying degrees of moral rectitude.

Cultural and Social Implications
The differences can be viewed through the lens of the social and political structures of these civilizations. Greek philosophy often reflects the ideals of a sovereign, somewhat aristocratic society where the free male citizenry engaged directly in civic life and philosophical debate. The focus is on advising those who are already considered good on how to excel further in their moral and intellectual endeavors.

In contrast, the Abrahamic traditions emerged within and addressed more hierarchically structured societies, where the masses were often subjects rather than participants in the sovereign functions of the state. The moral and legal codes provided by these religions served to unify and regulate a wide range of individuals, including many who might not have had the initial moral or intellectual formation that Greek philosophy presupposed.

Conclusion
Thus, the “wisdom literature” of each tradition developed to address the specific needs and challenges of their respective societies. The Greek focus on improving the good towards the excellent, and the Abrahamic focus on uplifting the general populace towards goodness, both serve the goal of social cohesion and individual improvement, but they do so in ways that reflect their distinct social structures and historical contexts.

My Work
So, I work from the aristocratic position trying to lift people from bad to good, and if possible from good to excellent – if ever possible. In other words I do not provide a compromise or presumed good for the moment, but the science of excellence for eternity.

The peasants may need their solace and sedation but for those of us able, we seek excellence not just good enough.

Cheers