Lets get down to brass tacks with this whole “Chaos” thing…
From maat.sofiatopia.org/memphis.htm :
[size=150]It’s all there, black and white, CLEAR AS CRYSTAL.[/size]
[size=200]YOU LOSE, GOOD DAY SIR.[/size]
Hence, Thales’ “Everything is water”
Also, Nietzsche:
“Greek philosophy seems to begin with an absurd notion, with the proposition that water is the primal origin and the womb of all things. Is it really necessary for us to take serious notice of this proposition? It is, and for three reasons. First, because it tells us something about the primal origin of all things; second, because it does so in language devoid of image or fable, and finally, because contained in it, if only embryonically, is the thought, ‘all things are one.’”
Thank you for letting your ego deliver a schism, it was quite uncomfortable.
Can you give examples? Descriptions? – Or at least sources and references?
Paint a picture of what you’re talking about,
why give just a piece of information and then sit there smugly while people are wondering “What the Hell are you talking about?”
I don’t mind if you sit there smugly, but can you explain your information?
Was I right? Was I wrong?
I can’t stand these cliff-hangers
Are you all idiots posing as intellectuals?
Or has history been completely forgotten - and it is repainted each generation to suit that generation’s egotistical needs?
Eheieh Asher Eheieh is not so much a name as it is a rhetorical prose - it translates to “I Am That I Am”.
Early Hebrew language did not have vowels, and “JHWH” (also, YHWH, YHVH, JHVH, IHVH… the tetragrammation varies because ancient pronounciation varied). However, to this day we still do not know the proper intended vowels in-between the letters (this is in part due to the fact that the ancient Hebrews considered God’s name to be too holy to say out loud), so the pronounciation has many variations, such as: Jehovah, Yahweh, Yehovah
Elohim is merely the generic plural word for “gods and goddesses” - there are no attributes to it (especially none relating to Kronos or Time). Judaism acknowledges “other gods” not as actually existing, but merely that surrounding nations and cultures (such as the Persians or Egyptians, for example) worshipped different gods.
Again, El is merely the generic word for “God”.
This is where Judaism takes a very drastic turn away from Greek Mythology. The “Ares” has attributes which are much more similar to the Archangel Michael (and not Elohim Gibor, which merely translates to “God almighty”). However, this does not completely fit the attributes of Michael either, as Michael also represents light. Yet, it would not be fair to claim that Michael also represents Apollo, since the angel Gabriel fits Apollo’s place much better. Gabriel represents reason and structure – Where as Michael represents spirit, faith, light, and fire. If we were to compare these two to Greek counterparts, they would be much more akin to Apollo and Dionysus, yet even this comparison still fails to completely account for their proper attributes.
“Aloah va Daath” is getting more into Kabbalah, where Daath (more commonly, Da’at) is the 11th part of the Sefirot, where all ten traditional Sephirah are united as one.
Tsevaoth (or Tsebaoth) merely translates to “of Hosts”…
Again, Elohim is a generic plural word for “gods”, and Tsevaoth translates to “of hosts”.
This is perhaps the only accurate comparison thus far in the list. Shaddair El Chai could be roughly translated as “Almighty God Lives Everlasting”. Chai means life, and is often used to refer to a sort of “essence of life” – Eve’s name is derived from the word Chai, so I can see how you would relate the epithet Shaddai El Chai with “moon” or feminine materia, and the Greek god Artemis.
Adonai Malekh translates to “Lord and King”…
Adonai ha-Aretz could mean “Lord of Earth”; however, I do not know how legitimate this term is in traditional Judaism.
I have now quite technically refuted every bit of information you’ve presented, which you (Jakob) had intended to put me in my place.
I think a dismemberment of your ego is now in order; I will be waiting for your apology, and I will accept it.
Interesting topic, but how in the names of ten gods does it qualify for a ‘philosophy’ discussion board? I’m starting to think that word has been stripped of all meaning.
How doesn’t it qualify for a philosophy discussion board?
Because it’s not philosophy, at least not in any useful sense of that word. You might as well ask ‘How doesn’t it qualify for a physics discussion board?’.
Still, an interesting topic. Just not philosophy.
Still then, what other forum should it belong in? Psychology perhaps, or social sciences.
Yes, or anthropology maybe. I don’t think it does anyone any favours to use ‘philosophy’ as a catch-all term for everything that sounds a bit deep like.
Well, gods and mythology were originally used for communicating sociological phenomena (and archetypes) - as well as metaphysics (and how the sociological phenomena entertwine with metaphysics).
While trying to be honest and not offensive, I would consider many ancient mythological/religious theories to be far more philosophical than majority of what is posted on this forum.
Just for an example as to how ancient religion/mythology was an early form of science, philosophy, and physics:
In one of my previous posts in this thread, I pointed out how the Hermopolis Egyptian Ogdoad as well as early Greek philosophy/science/mythology both depict “water” as a primordial entity; of course, ‘water’ is really just a metaphor for “containing all possibile variations”.
Nun (in the Ogdoad) is a passive, inert, undifferentiated set of “all possibilities” - which was a main ingredient for primordial chaos.
This is surprisingly similar to how modern quantum physics theorizes baryogenesis and the creation of our universe - most of these theories include a concept of a “10th/11th dimensional point of singularity”, in which all possible timelines of all possible universes are contained. This is almost identical to the Hermopolitan Nun.
Finally some contact with the infection that turned Hellenism into the nihilistic caricature we know it to be today.
When health has been reinvented as a disease then amongst the lepers the monster is Lord and God, and when nature is discovered to be indifferent then it is the meek that run for the nearest simplest way out of it.
Is it really any less philosophical than topics like “book burning”?
Who, me?
Is it because I just intrinsically connected religion and science?
And furthermore, have plenty of evidence supporting it?
Or that I, Heisman and Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Heideger and many others have done so, as well.
I was appreciating your efforts, as nothing more is discussed here, in these zombie-lands, but the repetition of politically-correct perspectives from the moral vantage point of Judeo-Christian nihilism.
I’m finding contradictory notions. For instance:
[size=95]In Greek cosmology, Khaos was a primordial state of matter from which the cosmos and the other gods emerged. For Hesiod and the early Greek Olympian myth (8th century BC), Chaos was the “vast and dark” void from which Nyx emerged.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_(cosmogony)#Greco-Roman_tradition][/size]
Likewise:
[size=95]Genesis 1:1–2:3, begins with the indeterminate period in which God (Elohim) creates the heavens and the earth out of nothing (ex nihilo) or out of primordial waters (tehom)/chaos.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_creation_narrative#First_narrative:_creation_week][/size]
What would need to be shown is that the early Greek and early Hebrew creation myths really differ as much as Peachy Nietzsche claims they do.
I’m normally not against using wikipedia as a reference. But with a topic like this, wikipedia is going to give you information thats about as credible as a sunday school pamphlet