jalapeno_dude
AKA Panda Judo Eel
(Not very exciting) orders sent!
Hey Iggy, did you look at my orders? Can you answer my questions (by PM)?Lord_Iggy said:@LB- You are a nation that has just risen out of warlike barbarism. It has Bronze technology. The rest is up to you.
Oh, and a few centuries ago some Bladeists arrived and colonized an island just off your coast.
Lord_Iggy said:Oh, and a few centuries ago some Bladeists arrived and colonized an island just off your coast.
Adeimantus: No, Eugenides, if you were to ask any man in the city, he would say I am the most learned in the ways of the divine and if he did not, you would not be speaking to a well educated man.
Eugenides: Delightful Adeimantus! If that is the case, I will learn from you if I can. Explain again, noble Teacher, what exactly you mean when you say holy.
Adeimantus: Quite obviously, Eugenides, holy is that which is approved by the gods.
Eugenides: Approved by which gods Adeimantus? For surely the Poet[1] tells us of many conflicts among gods, where each desires a thing wholly unto himself, and yet contradictory to the wishes of the other gods. Who, therefore, determines the holiness of a deed?
Adeimantus: Why, Eugenides, in these cases of discord amongst the gods, quite obviously the deed is neither good, nor bad, nor holy, nor unholy. Holiness depends on the agreement of all gods, for if an action were holy, no god should oppose it.
Eugenides: Adeimantus, your intellect far surpasses mine. Therefore I shall continue to probe you on this issue, if you will allow me.
Adeimantus: Of course.
Eugenides: According to you, then, that which all the gods agree upon is what is thought to be holy among the populace?
Adeimantus: Yes.
Eugenides: And there is no other way for an action to be deemed holy than by the ordinance of the gods?
Adeimantus: Why, of course, Eugenides, that is the very definition of holiness-as-such!
Eugenides: Thus, holiness-as-such is derived solely from the gods?
Adeimantus: This is true.
Eugenides: And no other place?
Adeimantus: None.
Eugenides: How, then, do the gods use holiness-as-such as a guideline for agreement when holiness comes from that very agreement?
Adeimantus: Well, you see, the gods have an understanding of the holiness of an action.
Eugenides: Indeed? How so?
Adeimantus: By their perfect understanding as befits their positions as divines.
Eugenides: But, Adeimantus, my friend, if they have a perfect understanding, why do they disagree on some subjects, agree on other subjects, and leave still other subjects completely alone? And if, as we said before, holiness is already perfectly understood by gods, how can its definition be agreement among gods?
Adeimantus: The gods have differing points of view, necessarily, given their separate stations.
Eugenides: And yet they all share the same perfect understanding?
Adeimantus: Of course.
Eugenides: Why then would they not agree on all issues?
Adeimantus: Again, Eugenides, their separation of interests prohibits them from doing so.
Eugenides: But, dont you see Adeimantus, by your very own reasoning, the gods must either not have a perfect understanding of all things and therefore lack divinity and exist merely as powerful beings, or else they are endowed with a perfect understanding and as such agree on all things. Yet this contradicts not only yourself, but the Poet Himself, and again, the idea of the separation stations of the divines. So either our entire concept of the gods is incorrect, or else they are not gods at all and we must look still higher to find true divine beings.
Adeimantus: Eugenides! What then would you propose, if you are to destroy all our gods and take away the statements of the Poet?
Eugenides: But I am the unlearned one, Adeimantus, would you deign to hear my thoughts on your area of expertise?
Adeimantus: Enlighten me with your theory.
Eugenides: Very well, by your leave. As it has been shown, either our gods are not the gods described by the Poet and the ones we believe them to be, or else they are not gods and merely powerful entities who rule over we mortals, or else they do not exist at all and are mere distortions of the True Deity above. For my part, I have yet to see evidence that the second option could be true. As for the others, if our gods are not the gods we have read about, surely they would follow logic and therefore we could reason some basic ideas about them through discussion.
Adeimantus: Perhaps. Continue.
Eugenides: Again, with your leave, I shall continue constructing this image of the divine. Think for a moment, Adeimantus. Which system would work most effectively, result in the least disagreement amongst immortals, and require the least amount of deliberation among the rulers having but one god or having many?
Adeimantus: Necessarily having one god.
Eugenides: And therefore would you say that if our gods turn out to be false, that it is most likely one god that will take their place?
Adeimantus: Perhaps. It would appear so.
Eugenides: It would appear so because it is so! Look at this! Even in the writings of the Poet, we find that all the gods can trace themselves back to one god, when he says And Ares towered above the field of battle / bloody and ruthless, greatest honoured in battle of all the descendants of Autogenes[2]. His name gives us all the information we must know, Adeimantus. How likely do you suppose it could be that, after Autogenes revealed himself to mortals, we ran away, using the imaginative minds he gave us, and created an entire body of stories simply because they are pleasing to hear at feasts or to recite in the symposium in order to impress our friends?
I started adding them yesterday. I'm not finished yet.I've noticed that the first 8 update have had titles. What happened to all the updates after?
Eugenides: Lets us now further investigate the nature of the divine. It is impossible, as we have already discussed, for there to exist more than one god, due to the nature of the will of the divine and the definition of the Good. However, we have not satisfactorily answered the question of whether there exists a god at all.
Adeimantus: Indeed, how are we to know?
Eugenides: Let us establish that the divine must be perfect.
Adeimantus: It is established.
Eugenides: Let us not jump to conclusions, but, like a builder who ensures that his foundation is sturdy, let us make sure our premises will stand.
Adeimantus: We must take no other course, it is certain.
Eugenides: A necessary precondition of the perfection of an entity is, of course, the existence of the entity, or else the entity would not, in fact, be perfect, correct? Whether the entity resides in this world or some other world is not in question, for surely the square exists on a higher plane, yet is only represented on this plane[1]. In addition, We consider existence to be a positive and therefore its opposite negative and thus a flaw. The perfect entity is flawless by definition. Also, lacking a perfect entity, we would have no way in which to compare flaws and virtues in any meaningful way, or have a standard by which we may call something “not perfect.”
Adeimantus: I think I follow you.
Eugenides: In addition, something perfect would necessarily be unchanging, as change is the result of an imperfect state of being, whereas there can be no variation from that which is already perfect. It is also necessary for the first being in existence to be perfect, and therefore, as we shall proceed to demonstrate, for it to have always existed.
Adeimantus: For what reason?
Eugenides: Is it possible for an imperfect being to evolve into something perfect without an outside impetus?
Adeimantus: What do you mean?
Eugenides: Is it not necessary for an imperfect being to be assisted by a perfect being before it is able to attain perfection?
Adeimantus: We are saying that perfection cannot come from imperfection, spontaneously?
Eugenides: Yes.
Adeimantus: Then yes, this is true.
Eugenides: Therefore, the first being would have had to be perfect for perfection to exist. Any being that was not perfect could not have been the first being, as attaining perfection would have required some outside impetus or standard, which must then be derived from something higher than itself, which would itself then be the supreme being, therefore requiring us to look above this lesser entity, knowing not to be divine (as the divine will is a single unity, as has been demonstrated) and therefore not worthy of our worship.
Adeimantus: What of reports of the Divine manifesting itself in many and various ways? If the Divine is perfect, he would have no impetus to change as we have said. Or is this belief erroneous?
Eugenides: Ah! A valid point, my friend. There must exist an explanation and we shall endeavour to find it. Surely, if men were perfect, there would be no great variation among the people (indeed, no variation whatsoever!), and yet, are there not men from Kallipolis, Epidamnos, Manatea, Elis, among the city states, and countless others among the barbarians? Therefore, the Divine would, in his perfect kindness, appear toe ach man as would benefit the individual the most. Is this, like the hull of a well-made ship, sturdy and self-supporting, or else is it flawed and doom to sink under its own weight?
Adeimantus: Surely it is like the first ship and has been well-crafted by the expert craftsman[2]!
Eugenides: Quite the clever phrase! And now, shall we cease here? Has our question been fully answered?
Adeimantus: Heavens no, Eugenides, we must follow through. You, as our guide, cannot turn back and leave me to wander in the Etnoi Mountains! [3]
Eugenides: I will be no Medon, leaving his troop to their fate. We will press ahead! Pick the path before us!
Adeimantus: Let us inquire further into the nature of perfection – does the God have both perfect kindness and perfect malice?
Eugenides: A capital question! And yet deceptively easy! The God, as the perfect entity, does indeed function as the source of all virtue and, as a part of his perfect character, has, as attributes, all the virtues. Vices, however, are not attributable to the Divine. Surely it is foolishness to name something “perfect malice.” However, for the sake of discussion and in the hope of vanquishing wrong though, we shall address the issue. As we have said, perfection preceded imperfection by necessity. Does it not then follow that imperfection is a perverted form of perfection?
Adeimantus: How so?
Eugenides: Let us take a virtue, examine it, and then pervert it so as to follow its progress from virtue to vice. What virtue shall we select?
Adeimantus: Surely, courage in defense of one’s family is the most honourable and least susceptible to a fall from grace.
Eugenides: Perhaps, we shall see. Let us take a man who is courageous in defending his family. He guards against every attempt to harm them and does his best to keep away evils. But what if, in the course of protecting his family, he begins to see that there are many things that could be both harmful and beneficial, depending on the results. For instance, if he allowed a man to court his daughter, surely things could turn out well if the man proves to be a man of moral character. However, if he is a vice-ridden man, the father could be selling his daughter into slavery! He therefore decides that his daughter is too precious to him to risk losing in such a manner and turns all suitors away from her. In his increasing paranoia, he begins to view more and more things as threats to his family and after a period of time, his defense becomes more offensive in nature and his courage has turned to fear-driven wrath, for, instead of trusting that the God would see the situation work out for the best with his cooperation, he tried to take all things under his control.
Adeimantus: This is a very good example. It is certain that all vices are perversions of virtue.