It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Thomas J. J. Altizer, famous for the Is God Dead? cover page article in Time Magazine in '66
On a pure level, Altizer's religious proclamation viewed God's death (really a self-extinction) as a process that began at the world's creation and came to an end through Jesus Christ—whose crucifixion in reality poured out God's full spirit into this world.
"Death of God" controversy-wikipedia
We are destroyed psychologically and driven to utter despair and hopelessness by ananke. We find no face or being to pray to in her so we throw ourselves to the mercy of the one who we find familiar to us and is like us, to do something we find ourselves powerless to prevail over.
German Theologian Gerhard Ebeling of Tubingen University finds an arrow pointing the way to God in the problem in language. A word, he suggests, is not merely a means of conveying information; it is also a symbol of man's power over nature and of his basic impotence: one man cannot speak except to another, and language itself possesses a power that eludes his mastery of it. God, he proposes, is the source of the mystery hidden in language, or, as he obscurely puts it, "the basic situation of man as word-situation."
Whilst human kind
Throughout the lands lay miserably crushed
Before all eyes beneath Religion--who
Would show her head along the region skies,
Glowering on mortals with her hideous face--
A Greek it was who first opposing dared
Raise mortal eyes that terror to withstand,
Whom nor the fame of Gods nor lightning's stroke
Nor threatening thunder of the ominous sky
Abashed; but rather chafed to angry zest
His dauntless heart to be the first to rend
The crossbars at the gates of Nature old.
And thus his will and hardy wisdom won;
And forward thus he fared afar, beyond
The flaming ramparts of the world, until
He wandered the unmeasurable All.
Whence he to us, a conqueror, reports
What things can rise to being, what cannot,
And by what law to each its scope prescribed,
Its boundary stone that clings so deep in Time.
Wherefore Religion now is under foot,
And us his victory now exalts to heaven.
I know how hard it is in Latian verse
To tell the dark discoveries of the Greeks,
Chiefly because our pauper-speech must find
Strange terms to fit the strangeness of the thing;
Yet worth of thine and the expected joy
- - The Project Gutenberg EBook of Of The Nature of Things, by
[Titus Lucretius Carus] Lucretius
This terror, then, this darkness of the mind,(fear of death)
Not sunrise with its flaring spokes of light,
Nor glittering arrows of morning can disperse,
But only Nature's aspect and her law,
Which, teaching us, hath this exordium:
Nothing from nothing ever yet was born.
Fear holds dominion over mortality
Only because, seeing in land and sky
So much the cause whereof no wise they know,
Men think Divinities are working there.
Meantime, when once we know from nothing still
Nothing can be create, we shall divine
More clearly what we seek: those elements
From which alone all things created are,
And how accomplished by no tool of Gods.
I fear perhaps thou deemest that we fare
An impious road to realms of thought profane;
But 'tis that same religion oftener far
Hath bred the foul impieties of men:
As once at Aulis, the elected chiefs,
Foremost of heroes, Danaan counsellors,
Defiled Diana's altar, virgin queen,
With Agamemnon's daughter, foully slain.
She felt the chaplet round her maiden locks
And fillets, fluttering down on either cheek,
And at the altar marked her grieving sire,
The priests beside him who concealed the knife,
And all the folk in tears at sight of her.
With a dumb terror and a sinking knee
She dropped; nor might avail her now that first
'Twas she who gave the king a father's name.
They raised her up, they bore the trembling girl
On to the altar--hither led not now
With solemn rites and hymeneal choir,
But sinless woman, sinfully foredone,
A parent felled her on her bridal day,
Making his child a sacrificial beast
To give the ships auspicious winds for Troy:
Such are the crimes to which Religion leads.
What I did was use Ananke as a search term under Books on the Amazon home page. I got highlighted pages in the preview of the book, so that was what I was making my last post based on.
I'll have to read the book myself sometime. I don't think that's exactly how he would conclude it.
I found something in Aristole's Metaphysics yesterday that I thought might adress that sort of thing.
. . .etc, shows that language tends from the concrete, proper nouns, to abstract.
Aristotle (2009-03-09). Metaphysics (Kindle Locations 3414-3420). Penguin Classics.
Our forefathers in the most remote ages have handed down to their posterity a tradition, in the form of a myth, that these bodies are gods, and that the divine encloses the whole of nature. The rest of the tradition has been added later in mythical form with a view to the persuasion of the multitude and to its legal and utilitarian expediency; they say these gods are in the form of men or like some of the other animals, and they say other things consequent on and similar to these which we have mentioned. But if one were to separate the first point from these additions and take it alone-that they thought the first substances to be gods, one must regard this as an inspired utterance, and reflect that, while probably each art and each science has often been developed as far as possible and has again perished, these opinions, with others, have been preserved until the present like relics of the ancient treasure. Only thus far, then, is the opinion of our ancestors and of our earliest predecessors clear to us.
I know, I was reading about that two days ago on the Theoi web site I linked to on an earlier post. It bothered me enough to where I found myself thinking about that this morning. As it turned out, in my thinking anyway, it would not have mattered if they waited for the wind to change on its own. So this comes back to haunt him later, after the war (as in that play I was quoting in my Bright Morning Star thread).
With Agamemnon's daughter, foully slain.
it would not have mattered if they waited for the wind to change on its own. So this comes back to haunt him later, after the war
29 Then the Spirit of Yahweh came on Jephthah, and he passed over Gilead and Manasseh, and passed over Mizpeh of Gilead, and from Mizpeh of Gilead he passed over to the children of Ammon.
30 Jephthah vowed a vow to Yahweh, and said, “If you will indeed deliver the children of Ammon into my hand, 31 then it shall be, that whatever comes forth from the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, it shall be Yahweh’s, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering.”
32 So Jephthah passed over to the children of Ammon to fight against them; and Yahweh delivered them into his hand.
34 Jephthah came to Mizpah to his house; and behold, his daughter came out to meet him with tambourines and with dances: and she was his only child; besides her he had neither son nor daughter. 35 It happened, when he saw her, that he tore his clothes, and said, “Alas, my daughter! You have brought me very low, and you are one of those who trouble me; for I have opened my mouth to Yahweh, and I can’t go back.”
39 It happened at the end of two months, that she returned to her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed: and she was a virgin. It was a custom in Israel, 40 that the daughters of Israel went yearly to celebrate the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in a year.
4 Then Jephthah gathered together all the men of Gilead, and fought with Ephraim; and the men of Gilead struck Ephraim, because they said, “You are fugitives of Ephraim, you Gileadites, in the midst of Ephraim, and in the midst of Manasseh.” 5 The Gileadites took the fords of the Jordan against the Ephraimites. It was so, that when the fugitives of Ephraim said, “Let me go over,” the men of Gilead said to him, “Are you an Ephraimite?” If he said, “No;” 6 then they said to him, “Now say ‘Shibboleth;’” and he said “Sibboleth;” for he couldn’t manage to pronounce it right: then they siezed him, and killed him at the fords of the Jordan. At that time, forty-two thousand of Ephraim fell.
Inspired by Jane Eyre, Dinah Maria Craik's 1850 novel, Olive, was one of the first to feature a disabled central character.
This is the theory of ‘appropriation,’ or oikeiôsis, a technical term which scholars have also translated variously as “orientation,” “familiarization,” “affinity,” or “affiliation.” The word means the recognition of something as one’s own, as belonging to oneself. The opposite of oikeiôsis is allotriôsis, which neatly translates as "alienation.”
Texts have referred to a process called oikeiôsis, whereby things are rendered oikeion to human beings.
Animal Minds and Human Morals: The Origins of the Western Debate, by Richard Sorabji
The Stoic theory of oikeiôsis or belonging had two elements which eventually came to be amalgamated. The first element is the explicit discussion of oikeiôsis proper. The oik- part of this word involves the idea of what is one's own. The oikos, originally woikos, is one's own household, as is reflected in the Latin vicus, a village, and in English place names ending in -wick. oikeiôsis is a relation of belonging, literally of belonging in the same household. It is the opposite of alienation. The ending -sis implies a process, so that oikeiôsis is a process of coming to treat things as belonging. One may come to treat one's own person or one's nearest and dearest as belonging. The Stoics came to be interested in the possibility of extending this sense of belonging more widely to one's fellow humans in general.
Hierocles the Stoic: elements of ethics, fragments and excerpts, by Ilaria Ramelli, Hierocles (the Stoic)
oikeiôsis: "appropriation" or "familiarization".
The Stoic life: emotions, duties, and fate, by Tad Brennan
It is worth noting that the paradigm case of what it is to take another human being as oikeion is the relation that a parent feels towards their children.