An amazing look into the teaching and theology of the early church. The translation is extremely readable, and, from what I am told, quite accurate. SAn amazing look into the teaching and theology of the early church. The translation is extremely readable, and, from what I am told, quite accurate. Shocking to me how much the theology of my non-denominational church differs from the theology of the leaders of the early church.
As an example. In Philippians 4, Paul says that Clement's name is written in the book of life. Clearly Paul thought quite a lot of Clement. In First Celement (in this book), Clement says that Apostolic Succession was a practice given to the church by Jesus. My non-denominational church is left to either believe that Clement misremembered or that he is lying. Regardless of the way each member in my church evades this teaching, these are the facts:
- Paul says that Clement's name is written in the book of life - Clement says that Jesus taught Apostolic Succession - My church says that Apostolic Succession is bogus...more
Aside from the intro of aphorisms, which is good, this book the epitome of bombast. The ethical system Nietzsche proposes is too fundamental and conseAside from the intro of aphorisms, which is good, this book the epitome of bombast. The ethical system Nietzsche proposes is too fundamental and consequential for him to offer no justification for it. In this book, zero empirical, logical, metaphysical, etc. appeals are made to justify that the Dionysian is superior to Platonism/Christianity. To Nietzsche, the Dionysian is just ObViOuSlY the ideal, and anyone that disagrees with that is decadent. No need to explain why. In fact, to explain why would itself be decadent.
Nonetheless, for the sake of being contrarian, contrarians are attracted to Nietzsche’s ethical system. But it’s important for such contrarians to admit that—despite the sizable impact of Christianity—the Dionysian is in fact the crowd. Most people and most belief systems are unmistakably Dionysian. Even a large number of professing “Christians” are Dionysian in behavior. The notion that Nietzsche’s ethical system is contrarian is an illusion. Twilight of the Idols offers nothing new, just a bitter and cynical re-presenting of what most people de facto believe, dressed up as though it is a contrarian ethical system.
I give it 3 stars because, despite the bombast of the rest of the book, a number of the aphorisms at the opening are profound. Also because Nietzsche’s writing style throughout the book is the opposite of boring, even if it is typically void of meaning....more
Just five dialogues of Socrates mopping the floor with other people. Euthyphro was probably the most meaningful, which is probably why it's most famouJust five dialogues of Socrates mopping the floor with other people. Euthyphro was probably the most meaningful, which is probably why it's most famous. Apology was the most entertaining. Crito has plenty of classic quotes.
Socrates' views on the good life, God, and the afterlife make me wonder if it is defensible for Christians to believe that Socrates is in heaven ... I think so!
Socrates arguments were probably least convincing in Phaedo. I'm sure this point has been made before, but I wonder if Socrates wanted so much for there to be an afterlife that he was willing to succumb to weaker arguments to "prove" that there is an afterlife. I'm sure I'll read Phaedo again when I'm older and see more wisdom in it....more
Empiricism BTFO. Plato and Socrates are quite literally two thousand years ahead of their time here. On top of Theaetetus being entertaining and readaEmpiricism BTFO. Plato and Socrates are quite literally two thousand years ahead of their time here. On top of Theaetetus being entertaining and readable, Socrates makes the tremendously consequential argument that most empiricists aren't consistent in that they don't take their beliefs to their necessary conclusion. And he pushes back on the empiricists that are consistent (like Hume) because they are forced into relativism, no continuity of self, no right to the use of our language, no ability to make metaphysical claims, and more. This dialogue is so good, especially part 1. Lends credence to the claim that all philosophy is a footnote to Plato. Hume's whole career is summarized and shredded by this dialogue....more
Loading...
