‘Truth to the Power, But They Still Don’t Believe,’ Dialectic Past, Present & Future: Exploring the Greek Philosophic Foundations of the Past, It’s Origin, meaning for Today, and Possibly Even the Future; with Concluding Reference to Rodney Hunter & Postmodernism

‘Truth to the Power, But They Still Don’t Believe,’ Dialectic Past, Present & Future: Exploring the Greek Philosophic Foundations of the Past, It’s Origin, meaning for Today, and Possibly Even the Future; with Concluding Reference to Rodney Hunter & Postmodernism

 

 

 

 

Y ‘Those Who Seek a Sign’ vs. ‘Those who seek Wisdom:’

Mythological & Oral Traditions Of Rhetoric as Foundations for the Emergence of Dialectic Z

 

Most Christians who study their bibles or attend Sunday school with any regularity will have sooner or later read and studied through the 1st chapter of the book of 1st Corinthians. Tucked down, about a third of the way through, lies a singular verse – which very often is overlooked; considering the soteriological focus of the chapter – which almost, on it’s face, seems an incongruent distraction.

 

For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom;

 

Most who read it, will never give it much thought; but it is the contention of this writer; as will hopefully be born out in the proceeding discussion – that a solid argument can be made that within this small, seemingly out of place verse – we find a hint of what could potentially be considered to be a number of the stones of the very foundations of Western Civilization. Though it can be argued that it is perhaps also a reductionist statement to make such an assertion, the contention can and herein will be made that prior to the inception and subsequent maturation of Greek culture and thought, mythological underpinnings served as the overriding metanarrative[1] of the bulk of all human history and it’s attendant thought. It was in the gradual unfurling of the Greek tapestry of ever-evolving thinkers that individuals began to challenge the longstanding mythologically-inclined epistemological frameworks that served them and that through which man and society both understood the world and themselves. While other cultures and traditions continued to embrace a teleological process based on story, or myth – the movement from existential experience, based upon mythological foundations – to cogently expressed frameworks by which to understand both logic, the surrounding world, and the respective dynamics of each, slowly and inevitably began their progressions. In the proceeding pages we will examine the nature of the definition of the term Dialectic, as well as it’s origins, it’s subsequent evolving meanings in comparison with those in it’s past, the present, as well as a speculated potential future; using individuals from the Greek traditions and their contributions to the founding and subsequent progression of the meaning of the word – both then, and now, and in the encroaching, potential future. The present writer will attempt to show that a true understanding of the word must incorporate a sense of changeability in terms of definition; albeit under the continued affluence of those responsible for it foundations and inception, in terms of it’s past and now it’s present use – as well as it’s future form; all of which cannot escape the touch of those who made the move beyond Sign to Wisdom and Story/Myth to Reason.

 

ST

 

 

Y  Myth as an Initial Foundation – The Need for Culture, Self-History, and an Inherent Identity/Understanding of each Z

 

 

In his book, The Power of Myth, Joseph Campbell along with Bill Moyers, explore the need that man has for a deeper meaning beyond what he can readily see. They make note that at one time Greek, Latin and Biblical literature were epistemological staples in the education process. They mourn the fact that this is largely untrue in our modern age[2]. In his book The Everlasting Man – G.K Chesterton provides an apologetic for Christianity in that he frames the entirety of History through the process and idea of the Christian concept of Redemption. A central thesis to this argument is the understanding that for much of human history, Religion, Culture and the Beliefs that defined both these things and Society were largely both accepted and understood as patently mythological in their essence. They are accepted as fact – but they are not questioned regardless of their apparent absurdity in this or that regard. The myth or the story was more important then the embraced or rejected authenticity thereof. What was of importance was the ethos and the spirit behind the ideas espoused, whether they be for the purposes of explaining how the world came to be, or how it was societally governed. One might argue that the mythology that drove the world was much like the modern tradition of Santa Clause or the Tooth Fairy. With punctual regularity, the time honored traditions of each were perpetually embodied and modeled to each successive generation by the prior; though the pervasively scientific worldview of the Modern adult would vehemently deny any practical capability for an inherent actuality, even as the premodern man – absent of Science, did likewise – but through what what might have been or seemed to him the societally accepted ‘Common Sense.’ It was celebrated and believed – but no body really defends it as actuality. Just as most adults today would be deeply offended if you told a small child there was no Santa Clause; they know there is not, but it is perfectly natural to believe it, teach it, and celebrate it. In these ways – these icons (Old Saint Nick & The Tooth Fairy) are modern representatives of the mythological narratives replete throughout Antiquity.

 

It is simply false to say that the other sages and heroes had claimed to be that mysterious master and maker, of whom the world had dreamed and disputed. Not one of them had ever claimed to be anything of the sort. Not one of their sects or schools had ever claimed that they had claimed to be anything of the sort. The most that any religious prophet had said was that he was the true servant of such a being. The most that any visionary had ever said was that men might catch glimpses of the glory of that spiritual being; or much more often of lesser spiritual beings. The most that any primitive myth had ever suggested was that the creator was present at creation. But that the creator was present at scenes a little subsequent to the supper-parties of Horace, and talked with tax-collectors and government officials in the detailed daily life of the Roman Empire, and that this fact continued to be firmly asserted by the whole of that great civilization for more than a thousand years–that is something utterly unlike anything else in nature. (G. K. Chesterton, The Everlasting Man)

 

Operating under such constraints of ‘Believed Disbelief’ the epistemological framework of the given societies were openly and unapologetically accepted as potentially illusory and infirm – but the history and provability was – contra Modernity’s inherent ‘must prove it’ tendency – simply not the issue; the experience of the belief was the foundation of societies understanding of itself: the very essence of the Mythological. A civilization might worship a sun God – and accept it’s reality for what it appeared to be on it’s face; evolving complex rituals and beliefs in the practice of the worship thereof and yet any question of the logic or necessity behind the behavior would generally be ignored. When was the last time you and your child left cookies and milk for “Old Saint Nick?”

 

This may sound confusing to one today; but even our own esoteric spiritual understandings are interpreted through a Modernist light as being “real” and “quantifiable;” both thoroughly modernist presuppositional assertions. What the Ancients thought in terms of their identity and history could be considered a Metaphysical Pre-Dialectic. At the time of this writing, a teacher has barely escaped with her life from an Islamic-ruled country, after allowing her students to name a teddy bear “Mohammad” – generally speaking, Religion, today, is taken as seriously as one would gravity upon consideration of the idea of stepping off of the Empire State Building. Radial Muslims declared the teacher a Heretic and demanded she be executed. Heresy – because of the understanding of the mythological as the foundation/essential essence of Religion, at that time, in that culture – was not common, not nearly as much so as it is today. As M.I. Finely points out in his book, The Ancient Greeks

 

Greek religion being one of ritual rather then doctrine, sacrilege too was normally a matter of acts: desecration of shrines, temple robbery, illicit participation in a rite or revealing secrets to the unititate, and the like. Where there is no orthodoxy there can be no heresy, and the laws or prosecutions directed against a man’s beliefs, not expressed in offensive actions, were rare throughout antiquity so far as we know. M.I. Finley, The Ancient Greeks, Popular Attitudes and Morals, pg. 136, italics mine)

 

W. K. C. Guthrie in his book The Greek Philosophers, From Thales to Aristotle – describes this foundation/essence as “Magic as a primitive form of applied science.[3]” And so the Greeks, as did any society at that time, had a society and a self-understanding thereof founded upon Magic, a potentially positable Metaphysical Pre-Dialectic: a Myth; which sought to explain their identity/history, but – important as it was – the explanation was more important then the ‘right belief.’ “Where there is no Orthodoxy,” therefore as Finely points out – “ there is no heresy.” Hesiod, an early Greek poet, writing in his Theogany[4] (“Generation of the Gods”) describes the origins of evil, which would have been a question, then; not necessarily as much today, often asked in the halls of pre-modern epistemology.  In his classic Poem, Hesiod recites how “Iapetus took Clymen, the fine-legged daughter of the Ocean” and she bore the Gods Atlas, Monoitios – “who’s pide soared,” the “quick” and “versatile minded” Prometheus, as well as the “wrong-headed” Epimetheus. For all their pageantry and prose – the Greeks, as stated previously, embraced how their Gods and how Evil came to be – as stories, and not what we consider today “Absolutes.” They would argue for with you that the story was the story: not as much the how but the what – but in the sense of them being “true” as a “Modern” would suppose, they would not be likely to put you on trial if you ignored or perhaps made fun of it in some way.

 

Philosophy began its life in the Mythological – but it would eventually break out of its confines, to some peoples joy – and other peoples consternation. Aristophanies said “When Zeus is toppled, chaos succeeds him, and whirlwind rules.”[5]

 

ST

 

Y Beyond Myth – The Rise of Rhetoric:

The Beginnings of the Sophistic Tradition Z

 

Edith Hamilton in her book, The Greek Way, writes that “something had awakened in the mind and spirits of the men there which was so to influence the world that the slow passage of time, of century upon century and the shattering changes that they brought, would be powerless to wear away that deep impress[6]” This impress that would make inroads into the essence and future of humanity began with the Greeks, as Thomas Cahill, author of The Gifts of the Jews and How the Irish Saved Civilization, continues on in the same vein of culture-changing-history thought in Sailing the Wine-Dark Sea, Why the Greeks Matter – when in the chapter aptly entitled How To Think, he talks of the Greeks introducing “something brand new” to the newly emerging stage of world epistemological thought. Philo-sophia – a Greek word meaning “Love of Wisdom”

 

In moving beyond an inherence in the Mythological, Philosophy – in the Greek Tradition – sought to inhere or ground itself into a different media: it found this foundation in Communication, but even this – as did a foundation in Myth – proved to be illusory; as those who practiced it were eventually seen in terms of what we would call modern-day “Spin Doctors.”  Prodicus echoes these frustrations when he says “They [the sophists] are on the borderline between philosophers and politicians.”[7]

 

ST

 

 

Y The Ascendance of An Authentic Cogency:

‘More then Words;’ The Search for Both Truth & Rhetoric: Dialectic is Born Z

 

Dialectic, according to Geddess MacGregor’s Dictionary of Religion and Philosophy comes from the Greek term dialektos (meaning discourse or debate) and is “the science of drawing rigorous distinctions.”[8] According to Aristotle, there is a founding figure to the concept of Dialectic, Zeno: who with his “logic chopping” or “rational thought” begins what might be termed an ascendance to authentic cogency.[9] Eudimus, speaking of Zeno, writes, “Zeno stated that if anyone could make clear to him what the one is, he would be able to speak of existing things.”[10]

 

But there is someone is the storybook of Philosophy that took Zeno’s logic chopping notion and created a veritable Asplundh[11] Epistemological tree clearing crew. Socrates believed in what could best be described as ‘disciplined communication.’ Samuel Enoch Stumpf describes Socrates’ theory of knowledge as being “Intellectual Midwifery,” in his book Socrates to Sartre

He writes –

 

Socrates was convinced that the surest way to attain knowledge was through the practice of disciplined conversation, acting as an intellectual midwife, a method he called dialectic (Samuel Enoch Stumpf, Socrates to Sartre, pg. 37).

 

Socrates turned the power of communication upon itself to create a form of epistemological self-abrogation that delineated the limitations of the power of mere communication. In doing this he stretched the power of Epistemology beyond the limitations of mere words and into the realm of the thoughts – both known and unknowable – that was defined by them; thus denying the self-authentication and absoluteness of Communication. In this act he freed the definition from that which sought to define it – in terms of the fact that he moved knowledge beyond the bricks and mortar that one uses to define or illustrate knowledge itself. In his rejection of “Absolute Communication”[12] Socrates states that there is something beyond just communicating with someone – there is a self-evident ironism: what in modern colloquialist terms might be referenced as the “Dilbertism[13]:” “talking is not communication;” which is reminiscent of sitting through hours and hours of lectures required by a company for various programs such as C.Q.I. or worse yet “Continuing Education in regards to Company Policies.” You can sit through hours of speeches and hear and comprehend/take in absolutely nothing; either by choice or by nature of incompetence on the part of the presenter – yet the solution most companies implement, is merely more lectures, more in-services, and yet another Power Point presentation.[14] Just speaking something does not constitute an automatic ‘reception of your explication’ – it is for this reason that good communication can be argued to be an art form; something that can and should be argued to be both dynamic and potentially beautiful in and of itself. But even this statement is itself limited; because the Sophists advocated a sense of Absolute Communication; which is to say that they believed the ‘end all – be all’ was in the Presentation. If the words were effective enough, it did not matter what the Truth was, just as Postmoderns say there is always something potentially beyond “Truth” and therefore there is no “Absolute Truth” – Socrates rejected the idea of the “Absolute Communication” of the Sophists, in that there was something beyond just talking – something beyond just communicating; there was truth and error – discovery and mystery, and these things could not be contained within the structure of mere “Communication;” as a process of engagement and delineation both could and therefore should necessarily be made  – even if it is outside of the sender or the receivers desires or interests.

 

Socrates takes this rejection of “Absolute Communication” – or Rhetoric  – as the measure of truth, and asserts that ‘Truth exists outside of any contingency with Communication:’ the essence of Rhetoric or words holds no unbreakable control over Epistemology. Socrates breaks beyond language to assert truth – and he does this by not just arguing that knowledge cannot be necessary controlled through words, but he does it through a process of Negative Dialectic or affirming and excavating apophatic[15] realties to destroy the cataphatic[16] assertions made by a potentially fallacious misuse of Rhetoric: it’s utilization as having a supposedly unshakeable foundation: Absolute Communication. This essentially adds depth to Socrates’ argument and ‘swings the door both ways’ for him; though that door is more often an epistemological wrecking ball to his opponents arguments, because it was generally easier for him to destabilize, through apophasis, his opponents potentially naturally unstable cataphatic assertions. It is interesting that Augustine makes mention of Socrates Negative Dialectic in his City of God where he states that he “was in the habit of starting every possible argument and maintaining or demolishing all possible positions.”[17] 

 

ST

 

 

Y Dialectic Today:
Arguments for it from The Past Z

 

The Term Dialectic is seemingly ever evolving; from the Hegelian Dialectic of a concept of a synthesis of unity between two apposing ideological principles, to the political revolutionary Marx’s Dialectical Materialism, and the immanent Neorthodox ‘uber’theologian Karl Barth, with his concept of Crisis or Dialectical Theology.

 

Many of these luminaries and the schools of thought they founded can be seen as being tied back into Greek philosophy, sometimes, on a variety of points.

 

British philosopher, Bertrand Russell, in book Wisdom of the West, described the philosophies of Parmenides and Heraclitus -and how Plato and the Atomists borrowed from Parmedides their concept of “immutable elementary particles” and from Heruclitus the idea of ceaseless movement. Russell writes; “This is one of the classical examples which first suggested the Hegelian dialectic. It is certainly true of intellectual progress that is arises from a synthesis of this kind, consequent upon an unrelenting exploration of extreme positions.”[18] There is a bit of Socratic irony, even – perhaps – in Russell saying this; as he himself was a radical atheist, and never explored the idea of himself possibly being a Christian – being noted, rather, for books with titles of such as Why I am not a Christian.

 

Barth’s theology is known for many thing; but the highlight of it comes from his rejection of Liberal Christianity’s “emotive” centricity,[19] reacting against his own theological upbringing in his book Epistle to the Romans, where he argues, as he would for the remainder of his career, for a “Crisis” or Dialectical understanding of Scripture[20] that means in essence – it is not about how you argue or feel about it – as the Greek Sophists might be seen to embody – but how you are challenge by it to either reject or be judged by it’s hard truth; which extends beyond the mere rhetoric of it[21].

 

A theological cohort of Barth’s – the fellow Neo-Orthodox theologian Rudolf Bultman – radicalized an approach to theology that pushed biblical literature back from the Dialectical ‘thought for thought’ essence that it carries today within modern Evangelicalism and sought to re-establish it within a purely Mythological essence; arguing that this was the way that Greeks not just understood their culture, but their Gods as well  – and it was therefore necessary to read any literary output they created from within this context, so that rather then finding the dogmatic truth, exegetically in a text, we should rather find the essence of the “Myth” that it was supposed to, in his thoughts, be extolling – as would have been the nature and default intention/method of the ancient author. Bultman’s contention was that we could not exert a Modernist Dialectical understanding on literature that was, in his view, purely Mythological in its presentation by virtue of when it was written. He argued that any proposed exegesis conducted using the ‘flawed method’ of dialectic – as understood within a modernist, non-Mythical examination – would inherently be isogetical because of it’s failure to apprehend the proper explicative process/intent of the original author and his context as he understood his own words.[22]

 

ST

 

 

 

Y A Continually Emergent Dialectic:
Arguments for what it May look like then,

Based on what it looks like now and Did Once Z

 

In his song Part of the Mind (feat. Zeebo), which could be potentially descried as an eclectic, hip-hop dance track with a meditative instinct, Rodney Hunter speaks through the artist Zeebo, who’s voice narratives the cadent dance track with intermittent contestations, sprinkled with a seemingly Rastafarian accent, phrases such as “Truth to the power, but they still don’t believe.” There are no lyrically-laid down stories, told amid the dance club-oriented cadences here; merely punctual metanarrative-like statements: “…Searching, but you never discover.”  The song ends with a single assertion whispered over and over again, in synch with the beat and, what could even be argued, the ideological harmonic of the entire song: “It’s part of your mind, your soul, and your spirit.”

 

In the very first page, even before the book’s index and formal introduction, Kevin J. Fanhoozer begins a brief paragraph, describing the proceeding book which he edited; The Cambridge Companion to Postmodern Theology, with a warning: “Postmodernity allows for no absolutes and no essence.” The rest of the book – a collection of essays by various theologians and philosophers – are merely contiguous-to-this-statement thoughts of how this reality is impacting the whole of today’s theology.

 

Philosophy, as an entity, has spoken “Truth to Power” through the power of Myth, as did Hesiod in his Theogany in Antiquity, and then purely through the power of Rhetoric in the works of the Sophists; eventually growing frustrated at the exhaustion of it’s own limited potential, then moving on to assertions of Cogency and Reason with the birth of Dialectic – as created by Zeno but perfected by Socrates. Dialectic has proven to be a foundational cornerstone for Modernism – and arguably even scientific advancement – in its ever ongoing quest for not just Words and Power – but Words, Power, and Truth. With Words have come Communication; with Power, Capability – and Truth – Authority. But in an age where voices from across traditions and schools of thought argue that a day is fast encroaching that we will not be heard if we assert Absolutes and Essences as part of our Communication and Authority; what is to become of that which was born out of a desire to move beyond just the power of mere Words to the power of Truth? Postmodernism says that it believes in Truth – but not Absolute Truth. Dialectic said that it believed in Communication but not Absolute Communication[23]. Is there a way that future generations can still “Speak truth to Power” in such a way that does not merely just rely on the power of words, but now, no longer merely solely relies on the power of Absolutes and Essence? Or – are we condemned by some virtue of an inherent Nihilism to a fate alluded to by Zebo; “Searching, but you never Discover…?” It is as though Socrates – as he has been accused of being; might actually be the greatest Sophist himself – his ghost having hence returned to us to say – “no, you can’t have it that way either, and here is why…”

 

Perhaps this sense of inner futility has been both the foundation and the primary driving force behind Philosophy and it’s urge to continue to discover – perhaps always finding a subsequently unveiled limitations, and then, a subsequent move to find what is still yet unknown; only to find, prove, assert, and disprove again. The Metaphysical Pre-Dialectical concept of Myth was created to achieve an understanding of Self and Community; Dialectic, a sense of Truth and definable Essence that was moved beyond merely a capability to communicate effectively, but, rather evoked an understanding of what it meant to effectively understand things as they truly are. Perhaps Post-modernity represents a yet another further maturation of Dialectic: a state possessive of a self-contained & self-authenticating fullness of an awareness that both mere Rhetoric is ultimately limited and, ultimately, the state of having merely Knowledge is a well. Having explored the full expanse of the Cataphatic potentials of Science, are we to be merely left with the Apophaticism of Mysticism? Did we come this far to start back were we began? We have returned in our journey to the place from which we came: the Mythical, the Unknown, and the Mystical. To define what Dialectic will mean to future Theologians, Philosophers and thinkers is a guess; but it a generally safe to assume the past can in fact be a good schoolmaster to present students.

 

My little brother asked me what the topic was for this paper – and when I told him Dialectic – he responded with the question, “is that like the grease that you put on your spark plugs?” I told him “yes – if the spark plugs in question are your imagination and your desire for knowledge.”

 

A Future Dialectic:

 

would probably see beyond both Words and Attainable Knowledge and know that both have Cataphatic power but are forever themselves limited by the potential if not inevitable encroachment of the Apophatic; they might echo the words that it is more then just what you can say, or think, or give essence to, but a mixture of all – plus the unknowable and the as of yet undisclosed; truly, “…part of you mind, your soul, and your spirit.”

 

A Future Dialectic:

 

may well affirm both Belief and the value of Skepticism, valuing the contributions of those who always will and those who don’t and the ongoing struggle to both know, and believe, along with those who will try to assert Authority both with and without Knowledge; even valuing the inner contestations, inconsistencies and divisions between; ascended to a place beyond the limitations to Myth, Rhetoric, and even Knowledge – “Truth to the Power, but they still don’t believe.

 

And it is in this place: between Knowledge and The Unknown – that both Science and Belief, Myth and Skepticism will no doubt continue to claim and counter-claim every square inch of the Ideological Universe.

 

 

f

 

 

 

 

Y Bibliography Z

 

 

The New Thompson Chain Reference Bible, King James Version
Indianapolis, IN: B.B. Kirkbride Bible Co, 1964.

 

Campbell, Joseph. The Power of Myth
New York, NY: Anchor Books, 1991.

 

Chesterton, G. K. The Everlasting Man
San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 1991.

 

Hamilton, Edith. The Greek Way
New York, New York: W.W. Norton Company, 1964.

 

Cahill, Thomas. Sailing the Wine-Dark Sea, Why the Greeks Matter. New York, NY: Nan A. Telese, 2003.

 

Gargarin, Michael & Woodruff, Paul. Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought, Early Greek Political Thought from Homer to the Sophists. Great Britain Cambridge University Press, 1997.

 

Woelfel, James W. Bonhoeffer’s Theology, Classical and Revolution. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1970.

 

Russell, Bertrand. Wisdom of the West.
London: Cresent Books, 1976.

 

Finely, M.I. Morris. The Ancient Greeks. Waco, TX: Penguin Books, 1977.

 

Editors, Gargarin, Micheal & Woodruff, Paul. Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought, Early Greek Political Thought from Homer to the Sophists. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1997.

 

Guthrie, W. K. C. The Greek Philosophers, From Thales to Aristotle. New York, NY: Harper Brothers, 1960.

 

Edited by S. Mark Cohen, Patricia Curd, and C.D.C. Reeve Readings in Ancient Greek Philosophy From Thales to Aristotle, Third Edition.
Indianapolis, IN: Hacket Publishing, 2005.

 

 

Warner, Rex. The Greek Philosophers.
New York, NY: New American Library, 1962.

 

MacGregor, Geddes. Dictionary of Religion and Philosophy.
New York, NY: Paragon House, 1991.

 

Stone, I.F. The Trial of Socrates.
London: Anchor Books, 1988.

 

Stumpf, Samuel Enoch. Socrates to Sartre, A History of Philosophy. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1982.

 

Russell, Bertrand. Why I am not a Christian and Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects.
New York NY: Simon and Schuster, 1957.

 

 

Palmer, David. Looking at Philosophy, The Unbearable Heaviness of Philosophy Made Lighter. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company, 1988.

 

Rodney Hunder. “Part of the Mind (feat. Zeebo).” Hunterville. CD. G-Stone, Hamburg, German, 2007.

 

Ashcraft, Morris. Makers of the Modern Theological Mind, Rudolf Bultman. Waco, TX: Word Books, 1976.

 

Mueller, David. Makers of the Modern Theological Mind, Karl Barth. Waco, TX: Word Books, 1976.

 

Trans. Hoskyns, Edwyn Sir. Karl Barth, Epistle to the Romans.
London: Oxford University Press, 1968.


[1] Metanarrative in this context would be defined as an “overarching” concept or idea which serves to in part inform the bulk of most smaller, respective thoughts and philosophies within a larger collective group or society/culture. An example of a metanarratives within the Judeo-Christian Tradition could be “Death, Burial, and Resurrection,” and “Sin, Grace, Forgiveness, and Repentance.”

[2] Joseph Cambell, The Power of Myth, Myth and the Modern World, Pg. 2

[3] W. K. C. Guthrie, The Greek Philosophers, From Thales to Aristotle, pg 12

[4] Michaelo Gargarin and Paul Woodfuff, Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought, Early Greek Political Thought From Homer to the Sophists, Pg. 9

[5] Donald Palmer, Looking at Philosophy, The Unbearable Heaviness of Philosophy Made Lighter, pg. 37

[6] Edith Hamilton, The Greek Way, Pg. 71

[7] Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought, Early Greek Political Thought from Homer to the Sophists, pg. 211

[8] Geddess MacGregor’s Dictionary of Religion and Philosophy, pg 184

[9] Rex Warner, The Greek Philosphers, pg. 41

[10] Eudimeus, Physics fr.7, quoted in Simplicius, Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics 139.11-15 = 29A16, referenced in Readings from Ancient Greek Philosophy, pg. 60

[11] Asplundh Tree Expert Co. founded 1928, probably coming to a tree near you – sooner or later.

[12] A neologism for the purposes of this discussion and its comparisons to the idea of “Absolute Truth.”

[13] Dilbert, as in the cartoon character by Scott Adams; who almost always uses his strip as a humorous mockery of life in corporate America.

[14] Perpetual use of this practice has given rise to the term “Power Point Poisoning.”

[15] What you cannot say about something. Apophatic Theology refers to things you cannot say about God, for example.

[16] Things that you can say about something. “Good is Good” or “God is Love” are both Cataphatic Theological statements.

[17] I. F. Stone, The Trial of Socrates, pg. 60

[18] Bertrand Russell, Wisdom of the West, pg. 28

[19] David L. Mueller, Makers of the Modern Theological Mind, Karl Barth, pg. 51

[20] Karl Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, Preface to the Third Edition, pg. 16

[21] James W. Woelfel, Bonhoeffer’s Theology, Classical and Revolutionary, pg. 54-55.

[22]  Morris Ashcraft, Makers of the Modern Theological Mind, Rudolf Bultman, pg 28

[23] As referenced in the discussion of the Sophists, previously.

Advertisements

About hollerscholar

I'm a theology & philosophy student, writer, web developer, and medical laboratory professional.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s