Occidental and Oriental Philosophies

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
181

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Eastern philosophy tells us, it is ‘being’ and the ‘meaning of with-in’. To me it sounds on the surface profound, but in essence it’s ultimately meaningless. We are so special that ‘with-in’ necessarily means much.

BTW, I am trying to arouse people and evoke negative feelings but ultimately I want people to support and make a case for eastern philosophy, not attack my simpleton lack of actualization and unification with existence.
[/quote]

Eastern philosophy tells us nothing that you can’t find out for yourself. If you can’t trust your senses to tell you the truth than that includes any kind of philosophy and religion, including yours.

Why is one thing meaningless and the other meaningful if both are devoid of truth?[/quote]

That’s not my criticism of Eastern philosophy. My criticism is it states “truths”, doesn’t back them up, and some practitioners have leveled the accusation that if you don’t accept a give truth, it’s because you haven’t thought about it enough. I don’t believe this fallacy has a name, if it does Kamui please let me know, because it’s not in my database of fallacies. I will call it the dogma fallacy. It’s true and your an idiot if your don’t think so.

I don’t believe either are meaningless and both do recognize truth, I say western philosophy is more advanced and better developed.[/quote]

This in particular is rich from you. And I’m not taking a pot shot. I wish you could sit back, and read the entirety of your postings on the subject of philosophy, religion and science, and see the apparent conflicts in your reasoning and beliefs (or, what you CHOOSE to believe and why).

“My criticism of Christianity is it states “truths”, doesn’t back them up, and some followers have leveled the the accusation that if you don’t accept a given truth, you don’t have faith and you’re going to hell.”

See how that works?

I’d say dogma fallacy is apropos :slight_smile:
[/quote]

Okay show me where we were discussing Christianity? There plenty of religion threads this isn’t one of them. And don’t lie you were taking a pot shot. If you weren’t you wouldn’t introduce something that is not being discussed and using it to ‘prove’ I don’t have a point or that I am close minded? Really if that is all you got from what I have been saying, you haven’t really read it, didn’t comprehend it, or … I will refrain from saying it.

Take this as a criticism please…You wonder why people react to you the way they do? You always take a partial point and attack a persons character or some way personally, when most of the time you are missing the point all together. You wonder why people get pissed? You really have to wonder?
You say there are conflicts in my reasoning, and say I am close minded. Ok, show me the conflict in what I said?

When you can’t find it, you’ll realize you took your personal bias on what all Christians must be like and applied to a situation that didn’t even call for it.[/quote]

Sorry you took offense.

I’m not engaging you in a pissing contest.

You seem to cherry pick what serves your opinion or bias, and much of the time they appear contradictory to one another across disciplines. Can I be any clearer than that?[/quote]

You say shit like ‘This in particular is rich from you’ and ‘…see the apparent conflicts in your reasoning and beliefs (or, what you CHOOSE to believe and why)’ and I am not supposed to take offence? Why is what I said ‘rich’ exactly? What, that I have said, could you possibly base this on other than the fact that I am a Catholic Christian and you have a bias that leads you to believe that have not only proclaimed but dogmatically demanded that what I believe is the only thing that’s right and true and if you don’t believe what I believe, you are going to hell? It’s only bias that could have led you to such a conclusion, because I have never said anything of the sort, as a matter of fact I have said the opposite and caught plenty of shit for saying the opposite. If you are going to say shit like that, you need to back it up. Show me what I have said that would lead you to believe that I have shoved any kind of Christian or Catholic dogma down anybody’s throat at anytime. Hell I’ll even take a paraphrase. I know the search engine here won’t produce the results you are looking for.

Pissing contest? Where did I say, or accuse of having a pissing contest? You accusing me of things I did not say and opinions I do not hold, where have a called for a pissing contest?

Lastly, now you are leveling this “You seem to cherry pick what serves your opinion or bias, and much of the time they appear contradictory to one another across disciplines. Can I be any clearer than that?”
What precisely am I cherry picking? What did I say that shows cherry picking? I stated my opinion as opinion, and I defended my opinion with facts and reasons. Second, I specifically stated my intention which was to be engaged, was to be challenged. Show me I am wrong. And guess what, nobody has responded to the challenge. Nobody has stated 'you’re wrong Eastern philosophy is ________________________" Sure, people have expressed their like for it, and that it has some value, but nobody has come to it’s defense in any kind of meaningful way. Now you accuse me of ‘cherry picking’ and yet you said exactly this “…Use what suits you, discard the rest.” ← Pardon the fuck out of me but this is the very definition of ‘cherry picking’. I said noting resembling that, but yet you level the accusation. Based on what? That I am a Christian, something not even being discussed.
So it boils down to this, you falsely accuse me of shit I am not doing, conflicts that don’t exist, and dogma’s I am not preaching, but I shouldn’t take offense. I should take your prose as well meaning and sincere? Really? Yeah, I am being unreasonable…[/quote]

I honestly can’t be bothered to read this. Sorry. Carry on.

182

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

So I take the parts that mean something to me;

And isn’t that the essence of a true search for truth? As opposed to doggedly hanging onto and defending dogmas and biases? Debating which is “better”? Really? Use what suits you, discard the rest. To deny wisdom where wisdom can be found b/c you can’t see past your stubborn bias is no honest search for truth.[/quote]

Dare I ask, what the hell are you talking about?[/quote]

Why are you so interested in debating whether “eastern” or “western” philosophy is “better”? Are you saying there is nothing useful in eastern philosophy? Nothing to learn? That’s my point. [/quote]

Again, where did I say ‘…there is nothing useful in eastern philosophy’? I am not even going to recount what I said, go read it.[/quote]

Your tone is decidedly against Eastern. You have made several statements in this thread as to the “superiority” of western “philosophy” even when it has been pointed out to you that eastern thought is not the “discipline” of philosophy you’re making comparisons to. You have made, or at least strongly implied, negative value judgments against Eastern.

But if we want to nitpick (here we go again), you have not said outright that there is nothing useful about eastern “philosophy” (to my recollection). Are you happy? :slight_smile:

And one other thing, please don’t ever talk about “likability” again to me or pissing people off. Your name is raised the most, along with two other people, as the most disliked people in all of PWI. Glass houses sir, that kind of thing. The difference? I KNOW when I’m pissing someone off - I intend to.

I do apologize for taking chippy shots at you though…it’s intellectually lazy.

183

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

And one other thing, please don’t ever talk about “likability” again to me or pissing people off. Your name is raised the most, along with two other people, as the most disliked people in all of PWI. Glass houses sir, that kind of thing. The difference? I KNOW when I’m pissing someone off - I intend to.

I do apologize for taking chippy shots at you though…it’s intellectually lazy.[/quote]

Is that true, and where could I find the results of this poll?

Let’s just say that, altough pat can be exasperating at times, I can’t imagine him being disliked that much on PWI.

184

[quote]kamui wrote:

since we are discussing about truth and cultural differences, i will suggest that our western concept of truth came actually from three different sources :

there is truth. a “barbarian”, germanic concept, which is linked to the idea of truce. It’s the truth of constructed consensus, fair trial, experimentation. An economical, political and scientifical truth.

[/quote]

? “Barbarian” was a Greek concept - 'o barbaros or plural 'oi barbaroi - It comprised anyone who wasn’t Greek.

? I’m not familiar with the etymology of the word but the Roman concept of truth had nothing to do with faith or religion. I don’t know where you get that from.

The etymology of the word “aletheia” is imperative to both theological and philosophical studies. It’s disputed. In case you’re interested here’s a critical analysis of Heidegger I found interesting:

http://www.iwm.at/publ-jvc/jc-09-04.pdf

185

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Eastern philosophy tells us, it is ‘being’ and the ‘meaning of with-in’. To me it sounds on the surface profound, but in essence it’s ultimately meaningless. We are so special that ‘with-in’ necessarily means much.

BTW, I am trying to arouse people and evoke negative feelings but ultimately I want people to support and make a case for eastern philosophy, not attack my simpleton lack of actualization and unification with existence.
[/quote]

Eastern philosophy tells us nothing that you can’t find out for yourself. If you can’t trust your senses to tell you the truth than that includes any kind of philosophy and religion, including yours.

Why is one thing meaningless and the other meaningful if both are devoid of truth?[/quote]

That’s not my criticism of Eastern philosophy. My criticism is it states “truths”, doesn’t back them up, and some practitioners have leveled the accusation that if you don’t accept a give truth, it’s because you haven’t thought about it enough. I don’t believe this fallacy has a name, if it does Kamui please let me know, because it’s not in my database of fallacies. I will call it the dogma fallacy. It’s true and your an idiot if your don’t think so.

I don’t believe either are meaningless and both do recognize truth, I say western philosophy is more advanced and better developed.[/quote]

This in particular is rich from you. And I’m not taking a pot shot. I wish you could sit back, and read the entirety of your postings on the subject of philosophy, religion and science, and see the apparent conflicts in your reasoning and beliefs (or, what you CHOOSE to believe and why).

“My criticism of Christianity is it states “truths”, doesn’t back them up, and some followers have leveled the the accusation that if you don’t accept a given truth, you don’t have faith and you’re going to hell.”

See how that works?

I’d say dogma fallacy is apropos :slight_smile:
[/quote]

Okay show me where we were discussing Christianity? There plenty of religion threads this isn’t one of them. And don’t lie you were taking a pot shot. If you weren’t you wouldn’t introduce something that is not being discussed and using it to ‘prove’ I don’t have a point or that I am close minded? Really if that is all you got from what I have been saying, you haven’t really read it, didn’t comprehend it, or … I will refrain from saying it.

Take this as a criticism please…You wonder why people react to you the way they do? You always take a partial point and attack a persons character or some way personally, when most of the time you are missing the point all together. You wonder why people get pissed? You really have to wonder?
You say there are conflicts in my reasoning, and say I am close minded. Ok, show me the conflict in what I said?

When you can’t find it, you’ll realize you took your personal bias on what all Christians must be like and applied to a situation that didn’t even call for it.[/quote]

Sorry you took offense.

I’m not engaging you in a pissing contest.

You seem to cherry pick what serves your opinion or bias, and much of the time they appear contradictory to one another across disciplines. Can I be any clearer than that?[/quote]

You say shit like ‘This in particular is rich from you’ and ‘…see the apparent conflicts in your reasoning and beliefs (or, what you CHOOSE to believe and why)’ and I am not supposed to take offence? Why is what I said ‘rich’ exactly? What, that I have said, could you possibly base this on other than the fact that I am a Catholic Christian and you have a bias that leads you to believe that have not only proclaimed but dogmatically demanded that what I believe is the only thing that’s right and true and if you don’t believe what I believe, you are going to hell? It’s only bias that could have led you to such a conclusion, because I have never said anything of the sort, as a matter of fact I have said the opposite and caught plenty of shit for saying the opposite. If you are going to say shit like that, you need to back it up. Show me what I have said that would lead you to believe that I have shoved any kind of Christian or Catholic dogma down anybody’s throat at anytime. Hell I’ll even take a paraphrase. I know the search engine here won’t produce the results you are looking for.

Pissing contest? Where did I say, or accuse of having a pissing contest? You accusing me of things I did not say and opinions I do not hold, where have a called for a pissing contest?

Lastly, now you are leveling this “You seem to cherry pick what serves your opinion or bias, and much of the time they appear contradictory to one another across disciplines. Can I be any clearer than that?”
What precisely am I cherry picking? What did I say that shows cherry picking? I stated my opinion as opinion, and I defended my opinion with facts and reasons. Second, I specifically stated my intention which was to be engaged, was to be challenged. Show me I am wrong. And guess what, nobody has responded to the challenge. Nobody has stated 'you’re wrong Eastern philosophy is ________________________" Sure, people have expressed their like for it, and that it has some value, but nobody has come to it’s defense in any kind of meaningful way. Now you accuse me of ‘cherry picking’ and yet you said exactly this “…Use what suits you, discard the rest.” ← Pardon the fuck out of me but this is the very definition of ‘cherry picking’. I said noting resembling that, but yet you level the accusation. Based on what? That I am a Christian, something not even being discussed.
So it boils down to this, you falsely accuse me of shit I am not doing, conflicts that don’t exist, and dogma’s I am not preaching, but I shouldn’t take offense. I should take your prose as well meaning and sincere? Really? Yeah, I am being unreasonable…[/quote]

I honestly can’t be bothered to read this. Sorry. Carry on.
[/quote]

Then perhaps you can not be bothered to comment?

186

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

So I take the parts that mean something to me;

And isn’t that the essence of a true search for truth? As opposed to doggedly hanging onto and defending dogmas and biases? Debating which is “better”? Really? Use what suits you, discard the rest. To deny wisdom where wisdom can be found b/c you can’t see past your stubborn bias is no honest search for truth.[/quote]

Dare I ask, what the hell are you talking about?[/quote]

Why are you so interested in debating whether “eastern” or “western” philosophy is “better”? Are you saying there is nothing useful in eastern philosophy? Nothing to learn? That’s my point. [/quote]

Again, where did I say ‘…there is nothing useful in eastern philosophy’? I am not even going to recount what I said, go read it.[/quote]

Your tone is decidedly against Eastern. You have made several statements in this thread as to the “superiority” of western “philosophy” even when it has been pointed out to you that eastern thought is not the “discipline” of philosophy you’re making comparisons to. You have made, or at least strongly implied, negative value judgments against Eastern.

But if we want to nitpick (here we go again), you have not said outright that there is nothing useful about eastern “philosophy” (to my recollection). Are you happy? :slight_smile:

And one other thing, please don’t ever talk about “likability” again to me or pissing people off. Your name is raised the most, along with two other people, as the most disliked people in all of PWI. Glass houses sir, that kind of thing. The difference? I KNOW when I’m pissing someone off - I intend to.

I do apologize for taking chippy shots at you though…it’s intellectually lazy.[/quote]

Perhaps when you intend to, you may want to have an actual point that exists. It’s helpful to your shot, if you are attacking me or anybody for things they didn’t say, it look retarded. I fully expect plenty of people to dislike me, I don’t really care, plenty of people like me too. And I don’t like everybody either, so big fat deal.
But when I argue real point and against things people actually said, not what I invented ad hoc as to what I thought they maybe meant.

187

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

And one other thing, please don’t ever talk about “likability” again to me or pissing people off. Your name is raised the most, along with two other people, as the most disliked people in all of PWI. Glass houses sir, that kind of thing. The difference? I KNOW when I’m pissing someone off - I intend to.

I do apologize for taking chippy shots at you though…it’s intellectually lazy.[/quote]

Is that true, and where could I find the results of this poll?

Let’s just say that, altough pat can be exasperating at times, I can’t imagine him being disliked that much on PWI.[/quote]

A poll? Like a popularity contest? “Will you go with me, check Yes, or NO”… hehe. If people don’t like for for things I said, it means they read it. So that’s fine with me. I am not trying to be the Prom King. Besides I have had some very genuine PM’s in my time and I wasn’t sending them to myself…
I actually haven’t ever read an negative post about me that wasn’t to me. But I have a few people on the ‘do not read’ list and I don’t read every single post. Anyhow, I am not interested in this thread being about me.

Also, whats the point of discussing topics we all agree on? It would be a giant dick sucking contest, who needs that? That would be boring as shit.

So anyhow, you said I was dodging an issue, I want to know what it is I am dodging so I address it directly.

188

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

since we are discussing about truth and cultural differences, i will suggest that our western concept of truth came actually from three different sources :

there is truth. a “barbarian”, germanic concept, which is linked to the idea of truce. It’s the truth of constructed consensus, fair trial, experimentation. An economical, political and scientifical truth.

[/quote]

? “Barbarian” was a Greek concept - 'o barbaros or plural 'oi barbaroi - It comprised anyone who wasn’t Greek.

? I’m not familiar with the etymology of the word but the Roman concept of truth had nothing to do with faith or religion. I don’t know where you get that from.

The etymology of the word “aletheia” is imperative to both theological and philosophical studies. It’s disputed. In case you’re interested here’s a critical analysis of Heidegger I found interesting:

http://www.iwm.at/publ-jvc/jc-09-04.pdf[/quote]

For the record when I say ‘truth’ or something is true I base it on the definition of ‘what is the case’ or what is the actuality of something.

189

[quote]
? “Barbarian” was a Greek concept - 'o barbaros or plural 'oi barbaroi - It comprised anyone who wasn’t Greek.[/quote]

germans included.

[quote]
? I’m not familiar with the etymology of the word but the Roman concept of truth had nothing to do with faith or religion. I don’t know where you get that from.[/quote]

veritas came from “verus”. It’s the same indo-european root (“uera-”) that can be found in the german word “wahreit”, in “waer” (an “oath” in old english), or in the slavonic word “vera” (that directly means “faith”). This root designed “something that can be believed” (eg : a faithful friend).
In all cases, the virtue of sincerity is implied.

[quote]
The etymology of the word “aletheia” is imperative to both theological and philosophical studies. It’s disputed. In case you’re interested here’s a critical analysis of Heidegger I found interesting: [/quote]

thanks for the link.

I’m well aware of this debate. More than the etymology itself, it’s Heidegger’s interpretation of this etymology that’s disputed.
The characterizations i proposed should be compatible with both sides of this debate… since i actually proposed both versions.

yes. I don’t dispute that. But it’s a definition. Not a conception it itself. (We, as a civilization, can have more than a way to conceive -and to find- “what is the case”).

190

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

since we are discussing about truth and cultural differences, i will suggest that our western concept of truth came actually from three different sources :

there is truth. a “barbarian”, germanic concept, which is linked to the idea of truce. It’s the truth of constructed consensus, fair trial, experimentation. An economical, political and scientifical truth.

[/quote]

? “Barbarian” was a Greek concept - 'o barbaros or plural 'oi barbaroi - It comprised anyone who wasn’t Greek.

? I’m not familiar with the etymology of the word but the Roman concept of truth had nothing to do with faith or religion. I don’t know where you get that from.

The etymology of the word “aletheia” is imperative to both theological and philosophical studies. It’s disputed. In case you’re interested here’s a critical analysis of Heidegger I found interesting:

http://www.iwm.at/publ-jvc/jc-09-04.pdf[/quote]

Yes that was a good read…VLADISLAV SUVÃ?K now that is a proper Czech name!

191

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]
? “Barbarian” was a Greek concept - 'o barbaros or plural 'oi barbaroi - It comprised anyone who wasn’t Greek.[/quote]

germans included.

[quote]
? I’m not familiar with the etymology of the word but the Roman concept of truth had nothing to do with faith or religion. I don’t know where you get that from.[/quote]

veritas came from “verus”. It’s the same indo-european root (“uera-”) that can be found in the german word “wahreit”, in “waer” (an “oath” in old english), or in the slavonic word “vera” (that directly means “faith”). This root designed “something that can be believed” (eg : a faithful friend).
In all cases, the virtue of sincerity is implied.

I have been working from 9am until 2am, literally, today, so all of these posts have gotten away from me and as it is no 4am I am in no shape to be posting. I did want to say, though, that I felt like I “got” your posts on truth(s), kamui. I was going to respond but wanted to read to the end of the thread first.

Here’s your original post one more time: [quote]

since we are discussing about truth and cultural differences, i will suggest that our western concept of truth came actually from three different sources :

there is truth. a “barbarian”, germanic concept, which is linked to the idea of truce. It’s the truth of constructed consensus, fair trial, experimentation. An economical, political and scientifical truth.

there is “veritas”. A latin concept which is etymologically linked to the idea of faith. It’s the transcendant truth of apodictic ideas and religious beliefs.

and there is “aletheia”, which etymologicaly means remembering and “unveiling”. It’s the truth that reveals itself beyond the mists of memory and perception.

There is probably not a lot of “truth” in a drug trip, but there can certainly be some “aletheia”. [/quote]

So, by my reckoning, there is

  1. truth = What we collectively hold to be the case (i.e. through a glass darkly)

  2. veritas = What is the case (pure truth beyond human perception)

  3. aletheia = Epiphany (the moment of clarity or revelation reveals to one the gestalt)

All ARE truth, and yet they are not the same, and they are all necessary to our understanding of the concept of western idea of truth. Reminds me of another truth I can think of :slight_smile:

I don’t quite get why this post appeared to be a point of contention. It seemed like common sense to me. Really really smart common sense.

192

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

And one other thing, please don’t ever talk about “likability” again to me or pissing people off. Your name is raised the most, along with two other people, as the most disliked people in all of PWI. Glass houses sir, that kind of thing. The difference? I KNOW when I’m pissing someone off - I intend to.

I do apologize for taking chippy shots at you though…it’s intellectually lazy.[/quote]

Is that true, and where could I find the results of this poll?

Let’s just say that, altough pat can be exasperating at times, I can’t imagine him being disliked that much on PWI.[/quote]

LOL poll? “fuck marry or kill” thread in GAL. His named was mentioned to kill. The point is, we all have our detractors.

193

[quote]pat wrote:
I fully expect plenty of people to dislike me, I don’t really care, plenty of people like me too. And I don’t like everybody either, so big fat deal.
[/quote]

wow. more common ground. imagine that :slight_smile:

194

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

And one other thing, please don’t ever talk about “likability” again to me or pissing people off. Your name is raised the most, along with two other people, as the most disliked people in all of PWI. Glass houses sir, that kind of thing. The difference? I KNOW when I’m pissing someone off - I intend to.

I do apologize for taking chippy shots at you though…it’s intellectually lazy.[/quote]

Is that true, and where could I find the results of this poll?

Let’s just say that, altough pat can be exasperating at times, I can’t imagine him being disliked that much on PWI.[/quote]

LOL poll? “fuck marry or kill” thread in GAL. His named was mentioned to kill. The point is, we all have our detractors.[/quote]

I should hang out there more often. I didn’t know I was popular enough to be mentioned. I didn’t know the thread existed actually. But oh well as long as they don’t try to actually kill me it’s cool with me. John Adams said “I thank God that he made me stubborn when I know I am right.” I am sure that pisses a lot of people off.
I know one Eagles fan in the NFL thread who probably hates me right now :slight_smile:
Ahh, but enough about me. This thread has taken an interesting turn in the examination of truth, I like it.

195

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
I fully expect plenty of people to dislike me, I don’t really care, plenty of people like me too. And I don’t like everybody either, so big fat deal.
[/quote]

wow. more common ground. imagine that :)[/quote]
Let haters hate…

196

[quote]I did want to say, though, that I felt like I “got” your posts on truth(s), kamui
[…]
So, by my reckoning, there is

  1. truth = What we collectively hold to be the case (i.e. through a glass darkly)

  2. veritas = What is the case (pure truth beyond human perception)

  3. aletheia = Epiphany (the moment of clarity or revelation reveals to one the gestalt)

All ARE truth, and yet they are not the same, and they are all necessary to our understanding of the concept of western idea of truth. Reminds me of another truth I can think of :slight_smile:

I don’t quite get why this post appeared to be a point of contention. It seemed like common sense to me. Really really smart common sense.
[/quote]

Yes. I think you got it.

197

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]
? “Barbarian” was a Greek concept - 'o barbaros or plural 'oi barbaroi - It comprised anyone who wasn’t Greek.[/quote]

germans included.

you have BC (and Pat) to thank indirectly for the treatise on “truth” in response to my off handed remark about accepting “truths” that suit you and discarding the rest when it comes to eastern or western or any other discipline for that matter. According to the above, there are only two personal truths we perceive and they are…personal.

But we wouldn’t nitpick in PWI would we?

198

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]
? “Barbarian” was a Greek concept - 'o barbaros or plural 'oi barbaroi - It comprised anyone who wasn’t Greek.[/quote]

germans included.

[quote]
? I’m not familiar with the etymology of the word but the Roman concept of truth had nothing to do with faith or religion. I don’t know where you get that from.[/quote]

veritas came from “verus”. It’s the same indo-european root (“uera-”) that can be found in the german word “wahreit”, in “waer” (an “oath” in old english), or in the slavonic word “vera” (that directly means “faith”). This root designed “something that can be believed” (eg : a faithful friend).
In all cases, the virtue of sincerity is implied.

Perhaps disputed is the wrong term to use. What I mean is that words don’t have ‘meanings’ they have ‘uses’ and the uses of the word ‘aletheia’ - its semantic development over time - is debated and of great interest in the fields of philosophy and theology.

Also, I have realised now why you ascribe ‘faith’ to ‘aletheia’. In many places in the Septuagint ‘aletheia’ is used in that sense(e.g. Isaiah 59:15-21) - perhaps this is to do with the Hebrew language - I don’t know. My experience is confined to some basic philosophy and a little Bible study(mostly New Testament) - ‘Faith’ is usually ‘pistin’ e.g. the mustard seed parable in all three Synoptics.

EDIT - For clarity^^I mean perhaps the word ‘aletheia’ has a link to the concept of ‘faith’ via the transliteration of Hebrew? From what I understand about the Septuagint, Torah was composed from memory in the 3rd century by Hellenised, or at least Greek speaking scribes. This period Greek has more in common with Attic than Koine.

My Greek was never particularly good - I had to work slowly from a lexicon and my textbook - and I’ve forgotten much of what I learned, but from my understanding ‘aletheia’ didn’t have any connotation of ‘faith’ in Attic Greek, nor when I encountered it in the NT - e.g. I am the way, the truth(aletheia) and the light - aletheia is not used to mean ‘faith’ in any sense. And when I came across ‘faith’ in the NT it was usually ‘pistin’ e.g. The calming of the storm - ye men of little faith(pistin).

199

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]
? “Barbarian” was a Greek concept - 'o barbaros or plural 'oi barbaroi - It comprised anyone who wasn’t Greek.[/quote]

germans included.

[quote]
? I’m not familiar with the etymology of the word but the Roman concept of truth had nothing to do with faith or religion. I don’t know where you get that from.[/quote]

veritas came from “verus”. It’s the same indo-european root (“uera-”) that can be found in the german word “wahreit”, in “waer” (an “oath” in old english), or in the slavonic word “vera” (that directly means “faith”). This root designed “something that can be believed” (eg : a faithful friend).
In all cases, the virtue of sincerity is implied.

Perhaps disputed is the wrong term to use. What I mean is that words don’t have ‘meanings’ they have ‘uses’ and the uses of the word ‘aletheia’ - its semantic development over time - is debated and of great interest in the fields of philosophy and theology.

Also, I have realised now why you ascribe ‘faith’ to ‘aletheia’. In many places in the Septuagint ‘aletheia’ is used in that sense(e.g. Isaiah 59:15-21) - perhaps this is to do with the Hebrew language - I don’t know. My experience is confined to some basic philosophy and a little Bible study(mostly New Testament) - ‘Faith’ is usually ‘pistin’ e.g. the mustard seed parable in all three Synoptics.

EDIT - For clarity^^I mean perhaps the word ‘aletheia’ has a link to the concept of ‘faith’ via the transliteration of Hebrew? From what I understand about the Septuagint, Torah was composed from memory in the 3rd century by Hellenised, or at least Greek speaking scribes. This period Greek has more in common with Attic than Koine.

My Greek was never particularly good - I had to work slowly from a lexicon and my textbook - and I’ve forgotten much of what I learned, but from my understanding ‘aletheia’ didn’t have any connotation of ‘faith’ in Attic Greek, nor when I encountered it in the NT - e.g. I am the way, the truth(aletheia) and the light - aletheia is not used to mean ‘faith’ in any sense. And when I came across ‘faith’ in the NT it was usually ‘pistin’ e.g. The calming of the storm - ye men of little faith(pistin).[/quote]

Good stuff.

200

[quote]
Also, I have realised now why you ascribe ‘faith’ to ‘aletheia’.[/quote]
I don’t ascribe “faith” to “aletheia”, I proposed that “veritas” was originally a faith based form of truth.
Confidence rather than evidence.

It seems that the indo-european root of the word “veritas” was originally used to characterize things like sacred oaths, pacts, promises, friendship bonds.
Whereas “truth” is properly the result of a trial.

[quote]
In many places in the Septuagint ‘aletheia’ is used in that sense(e.g. Isaiah 59:15-21) - perhaps this is to do with the Hebrew language - I don’t know. My experience is confined to some basic philosophy and a little Bible study(mostly New Testament) - ‘Faith’ is usually ‘pistin’ e.g. the mustard seed parable in all three Synoptics.

My Greek was never particularly good - I had to work slowly from a lexicon and my textbook - and I’ve forgotten much of what I learned, but from my understanding ‘aletheia’ didn’t have any connotation of ‘faith’ in Attic Greek, nor when I encountered it in the NT - e.g. I am the way, the truth(aletheia) and the light - aletheia is not used to mean ‘faith’ in any sense. And when I came across ‘faith’ in the NT it was usually ‘pistin’ e.g. The calming of the storm - ye men of little faith(pistin). [/quote]

Yes, as far as i understand and remember it, all this is correct.