Posted on 02/28/2007 6:55:38 AM PST by Aquinasfan
So crime to you is whatever is against the legal code, and not what is contrary to the natural law? Interesting twist on morality. Remind me again why we hung those Nazi and Japanese guys after WWII?
Do you really think we are obliged to follow the law, even if it is obviously contrary to the natural law? For example, if firearms are outlawed, do you feel there is a moral obligation to turn them in? How about a moral obligation to rat on neighbors who don't turn them in?
In classical Greece, there was no such crime/sin as you claim homosexuality to be. It would not in fact be unusual for even the philosophers to engage in buggery, visit prostitutes and keep mistresses on the side. These are the same men you are quoting when it comes to moral codes/poetics.
(does this have anything to do with Picasso?)
E, --it's my---name--ever hear of Greeks? (First name + a partial last name =aristotleman)
I actually believe that the philosophers were old white rich guys with no connection to reallity.
(athens= 10,000 rich guys, 100,000 slave guys)
I don't believe in the logic that you can quantify.
I believe in a logic that is more like faith and intuition.
I have no idea where you're going with all of that, but if it's a defense of the theft (as it seems to be), there is no response which is worth the energy of making the keystrokes.
I believe in a logic that is more like faith and intuition.
I don't know what that means. Traditional logic isn't something "to believe in." It exists, just as you and I exist. It's the basis of all reasoning.
Symbolic logic is another animal, and much narrower in scope.
Symbolic logic is not narrower in scope, but narrower as a means of communication between people. It allows more flexibility of thought, becauses it allows for objects and truths that need not be explained or excused. (Like faith)
One can condemn a theft as such, and still be untroubled to any great degree about what was stolen. I'm bothered more by the fact of the crime than by what was stolen.
It would be like the MOMA catching fire and burning to the ground. New York would be lessened by the creation of a smoking eyesore and the loss to the economy. But humanity really wouldn't have been harmed very much by what is lost. Its not like its the Library of Alexandria or the Uffizi. Just like its not as though these Picasso doodles are the Mona Lisa. One doesn't have to cry about something that is not sad.
Well, Plato in "The Laws" and "The Republic" certainly writes as though there is, and Aristotle likewise condemns it as an unnatural and shameful vice.
In any case, I don't recall quoting any Greek gentlemen up until now in this thread, so I am not sure why you bring this against me.
You brought up the statue of Venus, so I'm referring to classical Greece as an example of a culture where perfection in art did not coincide with moral perfection.
Do you have any proof at all that the carver of the Venus was a pederast?
Did not say the specific carver was a bugger, I said that buggery was not immoral at the time, therefore one of those carvers/musicians/poets/architects etc., was without doubt engaged in that behavior.
Does that make classical art "immoral"? Of course it doesn't.
Certain people in early christianity did think so, and burned many scrolls, beheaded statues, destroyed vases, and so on.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.