It is another episode on TPF of Europe-bashing. Sorry that Europeans led the world in science and technology, led the world in conquest, led the world in philosophy, led in globalisation, led in humanitarianism (for a much longer share of time than you would expect from such a tiny peninsula). The strategy of the weak, because it is weak, is to demonise the consequences of the strongest, even though the weak, if it were in the position of the strong, would have acted much much worse.

Oh, Europe's just fine. You needn't worry about it. We continue to look back on the glory that was Greece and the grandeur that was Rome as Poe would say.

led the world in conquest — Lionino

Sigh. I'll bite.

So that's a good thing now? What if someone "conquests" you of your wallet and blood pressure levels by way of a stabbing on your next morning walk? Don't call 911 or bother other people now. Make sure you lay there and die with honor following your principles to your last breath lest you survive and live a life of shameful hypocrisy upon discovering the shocking revelation seldom reserved to only the most profound of intellects (and most ten-year-olds) that doing bad things might actually be bad after all. :smirk:

The strategy of the weak, because it is weak, is to demonise the consequences of the strongest, even though the weak, if it were in the position of the strong, would have acted much much worse. — Lionino

All true. Though, one might ought to think twice before assuming which side of the divide one truly belongs to. Those who can remain consistent in their virtues and values despite hardship, remaining a product of themselves despite difficulty, who avoided being molded into monsters by the world around them, instead mastering their own life and level of contentedness without succumbing to the worst of human nature and all that is universally detestable: greed, theft, deception, violence, indifference, dishonor, and savagery are the strong, not the other way around. But as you say, it is the strategy of the weak to convince themselves and others otherwise. A winning one at that, it would seem. :smile:

Besides. There was probably much lying, deception, and other means of dishonor, not to mention sheer luck. Furthermore, being stronger than a person, which again has yet to be established, does not make others weak other than by means of a one-off snapshot comparison. This is a common phenomenon often observed in those with deep-seated inferiority complexes and related neurosis, doomed to a life of psychological projection, constantly seeing their own inferior qualities they desperately wish to conceal from the world and themselves in others, manifested as inability to avoid condescending feelings upon observation of others. And anyway, me thinks you confuse quantity with quality. A common mistake. As well as that last assertion of being "much much worse" being little more than an out-of-left-field claim of baseless conjecture.

Come on Lio, I read your posts. You're a smart cookie. Surely you can do much better than that. Surely the good readers of TPF deserve better than this pseudo-intellectual juvenile hoodlum talk you're peddling and granting us the displeasure of having to ingest this Thursday morning. :smirk:

And I'm all for Europe. But what I won't stand for is having Her represented by such a poor, shortsighted, poison-welled, empty-headed excuse of a defense of integrity and value. Again. Do better.

The story of creation was not actually a christian idea, it came from African tribes and was already ancient when the christians adopted it.

The western part of the Roman empire was broken down into many little kingdoms that over centuries became larger with only one king and developed the feudal system of government.
Christianity expanded and became the major religion in western Europe and separated for the Orthodox church in the east.

Over the centuries both the church and the lords eventually became so corrupt that the peasants revolted against both.

During the Early and High Middle ages, most advancements came about through the inventiveness of the peasants, better farming methods and tool technology, the use of wind and water power.

The Late Middle Ages was when the started to re-discover the ideas of the ancient Greeks and that started the renaissance. — Sir2u

That looks like a good account of what happened. I am learning from The Great Courses and I am having a devil of time comprehending the break up of Rome and eventual development of nations. I need to see a map. It would be really cool to see a map that changed colors as people moved from one area to the next. It is easier for me to grasp a thought if I can see it.

This was all centuries after West Rome came apart, and what does Genesis have to do with it?
The thread doesn't have a clear topic. — Lionino

:lol: I accept that I do not meet a higher standard of writing. I will always be more personal than technologically correct and I will always wonder and enjoy what others think.

The importance of Genesis is the mythology that has molded the whole of Western civilization. I don't think anything is more important to societies than their shared mythology. Even for those of us who do not believe the Bible is the word of God, it is still a strong part of our lives because it is the foundation of our culture, along with the Greek and Roman classics. We can not escape it. The word "human" means moist soil. Our failure to be aware of how Christianity affects our lives does not mean we are free from that mythology.

You will find comprehensive answers here:
The Theological Origins of Modernity, Michael Gillespie

And you don't even have to read the whole thing.

https://www.amazon.com/Theological-Origins-Modernity-Michael-Gillespie/dp/0226293467/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2W2DQ8DXXV8C0&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.G5iRyE9Wgb6mk6RP_S0uCt9RcZdxPmXw1qJw3WOuHEAmq5QU0qX7u7_8N_FKT6JtULdBVuCTIymlheuzkZoql3SiQBnUpQ8cm1r1kenATO19A2D4BcwW1b_ZxEF1ZbFXclZqM-QpJ84Kbacm9_kxlYPuEB9UMmV-vUOhR-ufB09Thv66GfImc8CLLRpzOjl9AoNEjdTs7gTyjHYbzRVaCzdD_P_oqyhizYONfEfUS8k.1hAKMATODsRXIHEP06_vuvR9b87bDJMLtoJJGRAtY4o&dib_tag=se&keywords=The+Theological+Origins+of+Modernity&qid=1715787555&sprefix=the+theological+origins+of+modernity%2Caps%2C108&sr=8-1

Or if you're lucky, your local library. — tim wood

Pefect!! "Exposing the religious roots of our ostensibly godless age, Michael Allen Gillespie reveals in this landmark study that modernity is much less secular than conventional wisdom suggests."

I am so happy you posted what I attempted to say in my post just before this one. I am afraid I need that book. :grimace: I already have too many books, but this particular subject is what is most interesting to me at the moment. :up:

But before it truly could, the bubonic plague and the Mongol invasions started. — Tzeentch

I could understand that part of the lectures I am learning from. Just before everything went so wrong, they had overpopulation and could not produce enough food. The plague depleted the size of the population so much that they turned to serfdom and tied the peasants to the land, stripping them of all freedom! That situation was intolerable! They justified it with Roman law, as Rome also tied people to the land to force their labor in growing food.

We appear to be food safe, but I wonder what would we do if our systems broke down and we needed more labor in our fields?

Oh, Europe's just fine. You needn't worry about it. — Ciceronianus

That's something that someone who has never been to Europe would say. Of it, Rome and Greece are places that exist outside of history books, they can be seen physically today, the glory is still there — someone who ignores it today would ignore it back then too.

So that's a good thing now? — Outlander

There is no good and evil. Read the last sentence of my post.

What if someone "conquests" you of your wallet and blood pressure levels by way of a stabbing on your next morning walk? Don't call 911 or bother other people now. — Outlander

Invaders in Europe (not immigrants) already do that. The difference is that those so called "refugees" (who are mostly able-bodied fighting-age males) are not leaving advanced technology, medicine, science, philosophy, and infrastructure wherever they pass by, they are really just killing and raping. But the hypocrites will defend it and say those fiends are victims of society — as if such a phrase wasn't evidently meaningless.

along with the Greek and Roman classics — Athena

Greek and Roman classics are not part of anybody's culture except the people who speak their languages — that doesn't apply to most here —, and the reason for that is exactly Scholastics. When it comes to the Bible, it is true, our morality is heavily Christianised whether we want it or not, whether we are atheist or evangelical.

Greek and Roman classics are not part of anybody's culture except the people who speak their languages — that doesn't apply to most here —, and the reason for that is exactly Scholastics — Lionino

So, the 'scholastics', who were avid readers and propogators of 'the Classics', were responsible for the snuffing out of classical education?

No. "Reason" there is used as "supporting evidence", not as "cause". Reading something doesn't make it part of your culture, you are not Japanese because you read Mishima.
English speakers have nothing to do (negative to do, even) with Cicerone, nothing to do with Caesar, nothing to do Thales or Evripides. It is not your culture, not your history, it has nothing to do with you. The Eneide or Iliada didn't shape your culture. I single out "English speakers" because I don't see Poles or Hungarians (who also have nothing to do) here saying nonsense about a people that explicitly considered their ancestors subhuman; otherwise, I will edit my post to address them as well. Sorry, history isn't nice, and culture is a downstream of it.

in the second half of my life, I've come to regret not having been educated in 'the Classics', although I console myself with the thought that had I been part of an earlier generation, I probably would have had them beaten into me with a cane, and would have hated them for it. Nevertheless, I think the want of knowledge of The Classics is a real want, it's a real cultural heritage, and we're the worse nowadays for not knowing about them.

it's a real cultural heritage — Wayfarer

As I explained, to you it is not. Do you speak Greek? Do you speak Spanish? You will never feel the same thing a born-and-raised Greek person feels when you look up to the Acropolis, you will most likely never read the Iliad — a translation of the Iliad is not the Iliad, it is a different book with the same story and structure. It is beyond you just like it is beyond all of us to really understand the Great Wall of China — it is not our story. The prime difference in the latter case is that there aren't hordes trying to steal that heritage because they have no ancient history. I think the term is "cultural appropriation", but I don't really keep up.

Reading something doesn't make it part of your culture, you are not Japanese because you read Mishima. — Lionino

Reading something exactly does make it part of my culture - and maybe that is the source of your confusion. Of course it does not make me Japanese, but no one ever claimed it would or could.

And ditto with the classics. But with this qualification: they are all long dead and long gone. Admittedly translations are not the original, but, being itself only a trivial observation, that is very far from the end of the discussion. You mention the Iliad and the apparent need to read it in Greek. News flash: Greeks cannot read the Iliad in original Greek, any more than English speakers Beowulf.

I'm pretty sure you know how to read, but like the driver who knows how to operate a motor vehicle but does not know how to drive, perhaps there are aspects of reading literature you're not well-informed about or were never taught. In briefest terms, if you wait for a story to come to you, it will never arrive: you will never get it. Instead you have to go out and meet it half-way and more than half-way. The older or more remote in any way the story is the further you have to go. The first stop being suspension of disbelief, and then you go on from there, interacting, being there, until you enter the story yourself. And with luck, application, and practice you arrive at not so much agreement or disagreement, but what underlies, a presence, however alien, and understanding. Njal's Saga an excellent example of such a journey: a text that is at first alien and remote, that with reading becomes vividly alive.

But it's also work, and if you don't do it, you won't get it.

It is beyond you just like it is beyond all of us to really understand the Great Wall of China — it is not our story. The prime difference in the latter case is that there aren't hordes trying to steal that heritage because they have no ancient history. — Lionino

I thought to comment on this but then recognized it does not make any sense that I can find. Try again?

Greek and Roman classics are not part of anybody's culture except the people who speak their languages — that doesn't apply to most here —, and the reason for that is exactly Scholastics. When it comes to the Bible, it is true, our morality is heavily Christianised whether we want it or not, whether we are atheist or evangelical. — Lionino

"Scholastics" with a capital "S"? What do you mean by that? And as to the Bible, clearly you're babbling. On your own account the Bible is not/cannot be read today, and thus any "Christianization" of ethics cannot be biblical. And anyway, I prefer the term "civilizing." As in the civilizing of ethics. Which, on consideration, less than half the world is concerned with.

In sum, your claims, perhaps having a grain of truth, are disqualified by the extravagance of them. Better, I think, to have been more parsimonious in your remarks, justified by the strength and reach of your resources.

That's something that someone who has never been to Europe would say. Of it, Rome and Greece are places that exist outside of history books, they can be seen physically today, the glory is still there — someone who ignores it today would ignore it back then too. — Lionino

I've been there five times, and hope to return. Only once to Rome and once to Greece--Athens and the day trip to Delphi, and Santorini. I had hoped to get to Eleusis to see the remains of the Telesterion and other sites related to the Mysteries, but couldn't.

They're wonderful, of course, but in many ways we can only make educated guesses regarding what they were, and I think it's what they were that laid the foundation for Western civilization. We should be thankful that so much survived the ravages of Christianity.

This thread really serves to spotlight your pedantry, I must say. Sorry, I will say. No, I have said.

Reading something exactly does make it part of my culture — tim wood

Not it doesn't. I am not confused. You just don't know how these things work, clearly as you are under the impression that every neat little piece of history that you find out suddenly becomes "part of your culture". But a culture, alas, is not a product that you patch over ad libitum — hence the difference between the traditional and the traditionless.

Greeks cannot read the Iliad in original Greek, any more than English speakers Beowulf — tim wood

Not comparable. Beowulf is in a different language than modern English. You don't understand Ancient or Modern Greek, you don't understand Anglo-Saxon either. The fact that Homeric Greek is different than Modern Greek, and that Greeks need training to understand it, does not change the fact that they have been raised in that language that is one despite one being more archaic than the other; Ancient Greek carries a way of thinking and a grammar that is realised in modern times in Modern Greek, not in English, a grammatically simplified language by all accounts — a Greek needs training to understand Homer, but he isn't learning a different language. This is a factor that is easy to understand for those whose languages have a history that extends far into the past, but for those who don't, it is not hard to get, you are forcing yourself not to.

it does not make any sense — tim wood

It doesn't make sense to those who have not had a strong aesthetic feeling elicited by a piece of their own history. The meaning is clear except for those that are stuck in the analytical mindset of separating texts proposition by proposition without ever taking the text in as a whole and transposing feelings that are being expressed.

In sum, your claims, perhaps having a grain of truth, are disqualified by the extravagance of them — tim wood

Again, Romans and Greeks abhorred most peoples around them and would have abhorred you too. They are not part of your culture. Your culture stands for everything opposite to their values — sexual deviancy, worship of minorities, effeminacy, worship of weakness and criminality, artistic decadence, and countless others. To prove my point even further, some of those things are exactly brought up by Cassius Dio about ancient Bretons (not related to the modern English but to the Welsh):

nay, those over whom I rule are Britons, men that do not know how to till the soil or ply a trade, but are thoroughly versed in the art of war and hold all things in common, even children and wives, so that the latter possess the same dignity as the men.

None of these values are wrong or right. But the claim that people whose values are diametrically opposed to one's own values are part of one's culture is self-evidently absurd. Cultural appropriation and dilapidation.

I do not think you can expect any literary or musical talent from them (the captives from the wars in Britannia) — Cicero

Njal's Saga an excellent example of such a journey: a text that is at first alien and remote, that with reading becomes vividly alive. — tim wood

That is either woo or you are role-playing. Njal's Saga doesn't become alive to you. You aren't a Viking, you aren't Scandinavian. It is not my or your culture. I may read the translation of it and the story may be conveyed to me. But I don't share those feelings, the original style isn't passed on to me, the words used in the text are not the same words that my mom and dad spoke to me since the days I learned how to speak. The metaphors fly over my head and alliterations and assonances are completely lost.

You are just arguing for the sake of arguing. Example:

"Scholastics" with a capital "S"? What do you mean by that? — tim wood

As if the capitalisation of a word that may be capitalised somehow undermines the understanding of something.

On that point specifically, Scholastics arises exactly when the west rediscovers the classics and then attemps to marry it to Christian thought. How could it be that someone who comes from a different culture has classics as part of their culture when those classics were only introduced well into the end of the Middle Ages? With classics or not, your culture keeps existing, without the Iliad, there is no Greek culture.

And as to the Bible, clearly you're babbling. On your own account the Bible is not/cannot be read today, and thus any "Christianization" of ethics cannot be biblical. — tim wood

The way in which the contents of the Bible may be transmitted are a completely different discussion and pertains to people who know Catholic/Orthodox history. You built a strawman then refuted it with a non-sequitur. Our ethics are based strongly on Christianity, that much is obvious, and the main book of Christianity is the Bible. Simple, nothing more to read into this.

Speaking of babbling:

And anyway, I prefer the term "civilizing." As in the civilizing of ethics. Which, on consideration, less than half the world is concerned with. — tim wood

Which, if I am to read this correctly, is implying that the half the world is not concerned with civilising of ethics, whatever that means. Again, another attitude that is antithetical to the Roman way, universalising and syncretic, instead of ignorant and xenophobic.

Sorry, I will amend my statement:
...someone who has not been to Europe in the past 10 years would say.
Paris is a dump, London is beyond gone, Lisbon and Brussels are approaching a point of no return. Europe is busted. The belief that it is fine doesn't stand a one-week trip to The Hague.

The Mongolian Empire was more advanced than Eastern Rome and France in the 1300s? — Lionino

Advanced in what respect should be asked actually. I was unclear on that. I meant militarily more advanced, philosophically more advanced, economically, scientifically etc. Not in every respect medieval Europe lagged, but militarily and administratively it was behind the Ottoman Empire for centuries for instance. It held sway over the biggest city in Europe and had an advanced bureaucracy capable of fielding a standing professional army. The philosophical texts of the Greeks were studied mostly in the East, in North Africa and Spain.

I don't think you have any clue what you are saying.

That rarely happens.

It is a compliment, unless you want to admit to being a hypocrite, lightly bringing up the Mongol Empire "as more advanced" without any condemnation of Gengis Khan being a mass rapist and his reign killing off almost 20% of the whole population of Eurasia, estimated around 37.75–60 million. — Lionino

An empire can be militarily advanced, allowing it to kill of 20% of the population of Eurasia... That does not make the violence more or less abhorrent. Did you mean with advanced, morally advanced? Then Europe is in a bit of a pickle having colonized most of the earth. Unfortunately, technological advance is often coupled with conquest. That is why the Turkish and Mongols were capable of penetrating deep into geographical Europe and that is why Europeans managed to colonize other people. I am not talking morality here. I am not not in the business of giving compliments or condemnations, at least not here..

Paris is a dump, London is beyond gone, Lisbon and Brussels are approaching a point of no return. Europe is busted. The belief that it is fine doesn't stand a one-week trip to De Hague. — Lionino

Compared to what? I live in the Netherlands and Den Haag (It is either Den Haag, or The Hague or La Haye as it is sometimes referred to, but not De Hague) was fine last time I visited.

Again, Romans and Greeks abhorred most peoples around them and would have abhorred you too. They are not part of your culture. Your culture stands for everything opposite to their values — sexual deviancy, worship of minorities, effeminacy, worship of weakness and criminality, artistic decadence, and countless others. — Lionino

Really? Those Romans and Greeks weren't deviants? I suppose as long as you kept your forays, as an upper class member of Roman society, to the lower classes and the slave class you were alright (and maintained the dominant role, of course.) Weren't the Greeks big on relations between older male mentors and younger men? The Maccabees opposed such degeneracy intruding into their culture. And later you have stricter Christian sexual ethics which includes monogamy and the disavowal of sex before marriage.

I understand notions of purity existed in Roman culture but they seemed to be very selective and not at all universal & dependent on social class.

Honestly, I am quite skeptical of how much of this is true, given by how many parallels there are. And if it is true, I would imagine that the story comes from contact with Christian missionaries.

It may seem like I am playing hard to catch but I studied a bit of anthropology and some red flags are being raised for me. — Lionino

There are many reasons not to be certain about it. When did the Genesis version of creation get written down and when christian missionaries go there?

The fact that their DNA remains without external influence for so long seems to indicate lack of contact with the outside world. I think that the Egyptians had a better chance of influencing them long before the christians ever got there, but there is little sign of influence from them.

Reading something exactly does make it part of my culture
— tim wood
No it doesn't. — Lionino

You will, then, be good enough to make clear exactly what does happen when I - or anyone - reads a book.

Greeks cannot read the Iliad in original Greek, any more than English speakers Beowulf
— tim wood
Not comparable. Beowulf is in a different language than modern English. — Lionino

I had occasion to place my copy of the Iliad before a Greek, because (at that time) I thought he could help me with a bit of translation/understanding. And he graciously explained that he could not, because he couldn't read it, making clear that he could not read any of it. But what's the point? What is your point, exactly? As it happened, I could read more of it than he could.

You are just arguing for the sake of arguing. Example:
"Scholastics" with a capital "S"? What do you mean by that?
— tim wood
As if the capitalisation of a word that may be capitalised somehow undermines the understanding of something. — Lionino

The fact is that it's two different words depending on capitalization. I simply wanted clarification as to what you were referring to. And the attempt to reconcile Pagan and Christian beliefs/dogma/thought was already underway with Constantine, c., 330 AD.

it does not make any sense
— tim wood
It doesn't make sense to those who.... — Lionino

I wasn't referring to any quality of your thought, but to my being unable to discern whatever that thought might have been. You referred to the Great Wall, and then, it seemed, suggested that either the Great Wall had nothing to do with thieving hordes, or something else didn't, either way I couldn't make sense of it.

And so forth. But maybe simpler if you just state your point(s) in simple language, then we might see if we agree or disagree on some matter of substance.

Paris is a dump, London is beyond gone, Lisbon and Brussels are approaching a point of no return. Europe is busted. The belief that it is fine doesn't stand a one-week trip to De Hague. — Lionino

All those Mongolian tourists. I understand.

You will, then, be good enough to make clear exactly what does happen when I - or anyone - reads a book. — tim wood

I see his point. Your saying by allowing the written words and stories of those much like yourself to enrich your life and instill the values they were meant to instill and have instilled unto those who were presently involved in the story, you yourself are now effectively part of that story, or at least able to gleam a sufficient amount of experience and culture from said tales to a comparable degree of those who lived in/during said times and to place yourself within the story as if you yourself were there. He is saying that's still more living vicariously, a lesser depth or dimension than that of those who the story was literally about or involved chiefly due to the fact such tales despite any level of detail and depth of perspective will always fall short to that of a person who was born and raised in such a time as that was literally their reality and all they've ever known from birth til death, a reality that cannot be "visited" and "unvisited" the way we can choose to read or not read a book and so remains more of a cultural enrichment or immersion activity similar to a trip to another country as opposed to full on cultural transcendence and ultimate understanding.

understand notions of purity existed in Roman culture but they seemed to be very selective and not at all universal & dependent on social class. — BitconnectCarlos

I don't think the ancients were as consumed by the thought of sexual deviancy as we are, or have been, since the remarkable, sex-hating, Paul of Tarsus began to contribute to what Christianity became.

For example, both ancient Greece and ancient Rome were largely indifferent to same sex relations at least where men were concerned, though the Romans considered it unmanly and rather ridiculous for a man to assume the "passive" role in those relationships. Julius Caesar was mocked by his detractors for being "Every woman's man and every man's woman." The regard the Romans had for the family under the stern supervision of the pater familias made it difficult and dangerous for a woman to be sexually active with more than one partner at a time, but I think the men were mostly free to do what they liked.

The Sacred Band of Thebes, a select group of warriors, was made up of male couples in a same sex relationship, one older and one younger. Alcibiades supposedly was in love with Socrates, according to Plato. Hadrian had his Antinous. Same sex relations and bisexuality were rather common, it seems, and depicted in such works as Petronius' Satyricon.

Sorry, I will amend my statement:
...someone who has not been to Europe in the past 10 years would say.
Paris is a dump, London is beyond gone, Lisbon and Brussels are approaching a point of no return. Europe is busted. The belief that it is fine doesn't stand a one-week trip to De Hague. — Lionino

The elections to the European Parliament in just a few weeks will be fascinating.

We started with something outstanding: the attempted murder of Slovakia's President.
Not even in backward countries like Mexico or India is this done.

It is another episode on TPF of Europe-bashing. — Lionino

Yeah that's it! We simply hate it.

Sorry that Europeans led the world in science and technology — Lionino

They only did for some time. During Roman rule perhaps and after the scientific revolution. Afterwards advances in technology were mostly made in the US and Japan. The problem as I see it, is that it is somehow threatening to your self perception to acknowledge the contributions of other peoples than Europeans. Now you are probably lamenting the demise of Europe and blame it on the dillution of European culture somehow. Only a Greek might feel pride when he/she sees the acropolis. That Greeks intermingled with the Turkish and other Balkan cultures and so probably there is no Greek person that can trace his heritage back to the ancient Athenians and Spartans is apparently of no concern. In your mind there is something essentially Greek and if you have 'it' then you can admire the acropolis otherwise you cannot.

Such notions are rather dangerous as history has proven, but they are also rather silly because what is European and is not, are not fixed categories. North Africa belonged to the Roman world, the Ottoman Empire belonged to what became known as the concert of Europe since 1856. Israel plays in European football competitions and sings in the Eurovision song contest etc.

I see his point. Your saying by [you are] allowing the written words and stories of those much like yourself to enrich your lifeand instill the values they were meant to instill and have instilled unto those who were presently involved in the story,you yourself are now effectively part of that story, or at least able to gleam a sufficient amount of experience and culture from said tales to a comparable degree of those who lived in/during said times and to place yourself within the story as if you yourself were there. — Outlander

He is saying that's still more living vicariously, a lesser depth or dimension than that of those who the story was literally about or involved chiefly due to the fact such tales despite any level of detail and depth of perspective will always fall short to that of a person who was born and raised in such a time as that was literally their reality and all they've ever known from birth til death, a reality that cannot be "visited" and "unvisited" the way we can choose to read or not read a book and so remains more of a cultural enrichment or immersion activity similar to a trip to another country as opposed to full on cultural transcendence and ultimate understanding. — Outlander

Which is in sum to say almost nothing at all. Let's take his example of Yukio Mishima. According to him, not being Japanese, I won't "get" Mishima. In a trivial sense, some truth. But let's look a little deeper. What does it mean to be Japanese, in this sense? Obviously to be a person born in Japan of Japanese parents - if there is any other definition, I am unaware of it. Does that mean the Japanese person will get Mishima in ways that others cannot? This implies that being Japanese is implicitly something shared by Japanese people apart from the mere fact of their being Japanese. And while many share many things, nothing is universal; Japan is multi-layered every-which-way, from Ainu in the North to Okinawans in the South. To say they're all alike in ways different from other people, that allows them a special appreciation of their own literature withheld from others, while containing a grain of truth, is mainly nonsense. Just as, beyond the mere fact of being American, nothing is universal about Americans, although many of us will share many things.

But all of us, differences notwithstanding, are also alike in that we share many things. And literature is one place where we can share them. That is, by the practice of the right reading skills, we can "get it." Does that make me Japanese, or an ancient Greek, or anyone else I read about? Of course not. But at the same time the literature is a door I can go through, and experience and learn from.

A couple of points: books more than a hundred years old are about people who are dead, and about places and things that either no longer exist or no longer exist as they did. And, if you think vicarious experience is not part of reading literature, then you do not know how to read or what reading is. If you never "try on" Madam LaFarge or the Vengeance or Sydney Carton, or attempt a dialogue with them or to encounter them, then A Tale of Two Cities must seem and be a great waste of time to you. And the same for every other work of literature.

sex-hating — Ciceronianus

I'm rather certain his disapproval and concerns lie in the greater more generalized danger of over-indulgence and the effects it can have on not just people but entire societies when one allows his or her life to become warped and inevitably controlled by intrinsically purposeless (albeit enjoyable) pursuits, recreational sex naturally being the most dangerous, likely to sway individuals both rich and poor, be they strong or meek, morally-upright and pious or not. It rightfully holds such a reputation as it (sex for pleasure) is often confused, especially by the young or uneducated, with being among the Great qualities and pursuits in life man strives to achieve: love, health, honor, and family. In societies where these formerly great values have become corrupted, the victims of that society then begin to view mindless whoredom as the pinnacle and sought after sum or culmination of all life purpose and effort. It is in no short part because, we, especially when young or uneducated, tend to view sexual relations as the ultimate form of personal acceptance, and as a result the ultimate form of worth or value, and conversely, the ultimate form of rejection and worthlessness. This corruption, this animal-like social dynamic man has been given the tools and intellectual capacity to leave behind as the first upright mammal left behind his former place wallowing in the dust of the Earth is what he valiantly tried, and succeeded for a time, to prevent.

So like most things, it was not the thing itself, but the principle behind it, in this case the lack of one, the dangers of blind indulgence, corruption and destruction of intellectual and moral values, and the resulting tendency of these things, especially when conducted in unison, to destroy societies and as a result end entire civilizations writ-large.

I don't think the ancients were as consumed by the thought of sexual deviancy as we are, or have been, since the remarkable, sex-hating, Paul of Tarsus began to contribute to what Christianity became. — Ciceronianus

He is remarkable. I read Paul as a man deeply concerned about his own salvation. When I look at his biography, I find myself thinking that this man is going to need a lot of faith and a lot of grace. His deep concern for his own salvation is not unfounded. He is not a Jew who has played by the rules of his background/tradition.

But Jesus isn't here to call the righteous, but the sinner. And that Paul is a sinner. But he knows it. Prototypical Christ-follower imo. In life some of us will go very astray and the radicalness of Christianity lies in the fact that it is not necessarily those who behave the best who attain the best afterlife, but those who do the right internal work.

The polytheists surely had a more lax sexual ethic generally, though I do understand the Roman world has the vestal virgins and a woman's purity was highly valued. In the Jewish world prohibitions against homosexuality, incest, and bestiality were established early with the biblical penalty often being death. But I know of not a single case where this actually occurred at least regarding homosexuality. Fornication was frowned upon.

ditto with the classics. But with this qualification: they are all long dead and long gone. — tim wood

One of the reasons they're still read is obviously because they were judged to have enduring value, and the fact that they have been preserved for millenia attests to that. (Presumably there were many minor and lesser writings that were not so preserved.) But I do get that to really understand (for example) Plato's corpus, you would have to read them in the original, so as to grasp all of the allusions and subtleties of the language. But then, it's a difficult field of scholarship, due both to the difficulties of the source texts, and also that they have been subject to centuries of commentary.

I've been attracted to Lloyd Gerson's books, and also those of a classics scholar Katya Vogt, but their books are very hard to read. They contain very lengthy and detailed footnotes and devote a great deal of time to defending their interpretation against others, ancient and modern, which introduce many intricacies of interpretation and arcane arguments replete with passages in Greek which of course I don't understand.

But, I do agree with the points you've made above, about assimilating the ideas from these texts, indeed that's why I made the remark at the outset. Also I've noticed this series from Princeton Press which makes available many classic texts.