A well-made presentation, but I think that the ethnographic suggestion is very spurious, at best. Based on the sources I have seen it seems that, while I'm sure popular with certain crowds today, the theory that Aesop was African is distinctly anachronistic and a relatively modern invention, only coming about in the Middle Ages, largely based on poor etymological analysis (the mistaken idea that Aesop and "Aethiops" have any relation, which they don't), and not consistent with what any of his contemporaries thought, all the firmly placing his origin - if he was in fact a real historical figure - in Asia Minor ("Sage of Lydia"). As for the more exotic animals, while many of them may not have existed in Greece proper they were certainly prevalent all throughout Egypt, the Levant, and Libya, which definitely was well within the Greek cultural sphere. That said, considering what we know about the population demographics of the ancient world, and especially classical North Africa, which was different than it is today, and very different than sub-Saharan Africa especially, even if he was technically "African" that doesn't necessarily mean he was "black". - Frank M. Snowden, Jr., _Blacks in Antiquity: Ethiopians in the Greco-Roman Experience_ (page 264) - Gert-Jan van Dijk, "Aesop" entry in _The Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece_ - Robert Temple, Introduction to _Aesop: The Complete Fables_ (pages xx - xxi)
Yes, the suggestion might be spurious indeed, but it's not modern in the proper sense. The idea is, as you suggested, Byzantine. So, it could be a misunderstanding, but at least it did not carry any modern racial stereotype.
Love your stuff AGR! But the suggestion of Aesop being Ethiopian is grossly wrong, the first suggestion of Aesop being Ethiopian is from a Byzantine scholar (Planudes in 13th century) and is based on a false correlation of his name with Ethiopia. The universal view of the ancient Greeks and Romans was that he was a slave in Samos likely of Lydian ancestry, there is no suggestion he was Ethiopian. Unfortunately this myth was promoted by Victorian and 20th century classicists with political motives and has continued to be promoted by the modern wokeists with no shred of solid evidence. Despite this hiccup, another fantastic video! Thank you for what you do! 🙌🏻🥂
It seems that slowly, as people walk away from the light of the Gods into the neon lights of a vice-filled future, morality is slowing becoming a past reflection. What is right became "what will promote my image" to others. Nihilism is the religion of the modern age.
The values we embrace as a culture are also evolutionary and not at all at odds with Darwinism. Our laws grow out of our need to live together. Society reflects the values of the tribe from which it originated. All our values are based upon our ability to reason. The Golden Rule, on the whole, is self-evident. Trust, though it may be betrayed, is necessary when living in a group. Evolution applies to social beliefs and laws as much as it applies to an individual. I see no contradiction in this.
Which is exactly why we spoke of "virtue" and not "values." It's an easy mistake to make, but values are very much associated with this Darwinian paradigm that we criticized. The question, however, concerning Virtue is - as it always has been - the following: is there an objective Good that humans should strive for? Is there something that is appropriate for Man *as* Man, and not just appropriate for the French, or Indians, or Muslims ..? That is the question that is denied by Darwinism, which is why his paradigm would not have fit in the ancient world.
sometimes i see some truth...sometimes i see a juu...doing what the juu do best, even when the rest just rest...sometimes i hear a spell... sometimes i see it well...and i hope other people too, someday will see the juu, doing what the juu do best....someday i wait for you, to come with me someday, and finally see the juu
Even if morality was a practical outcome of evolution, which I'm not convinced of, it is deeply uninspiring. For cultures to thrive there must have been a very profound revelation from God / Being to inspire civilizations at least at the start before it degrades to the level of utility. Our present culture seems to be lacking this original experience of revelation which breathes life into civilizations. Thank you for the great content.
Actually, I couldn’t agree more. In fact, our episode on Dionysus (the one about Otto) restates Wolfram F. Otto’s position that religions are “impressions of life.” Encounters, as you called them, with Being. I would love to hear your opinion about it.
@@staceykersting705 You didn't get it did you? There is a premise in these two statements which is the same: "Your disbelief in -that which you think is not real- exists because of -that which you think is not real- "
A well-made presentation, but I think that the ethnographic suggestion is very spurious, at best.
Based on the sources I have seen it seems that, while I'm sure popular with certain crowds today, the theory that Aesop was African is distinctly anachronistic and a relatively modern invention, only coming about in the Middle Ages, largely based on poor etymological analysis (the mistaken idea that Aesop and "Aethiops" have any relation, which they don't), and not consistent with what any of his contemporaries thought, all the firmly placing his origin - if he was in fact a real historical figure - in Asia Minor ("Sage of Lydia").
As for the more exotic animals, while many of them may not have existed in Greece proper they were certainly prevalent all throughout Egypt, the Levant, and Libya, which definitely was well within the Greek cultural sphere.
That said, considering what we know about the population demographics of the ancient world, and especially classical North Africa, which was different than it is today, and very different than sub-Saharan Africa especially, even if he was technically "African" that doesn't necessarily mean he was "black".
- Frank M. Snowden, Jr., _Blacks in Antiquity: Ethiopians in the Greco-Roman Experience_ (page 264)
- Gert-Jan van Dijk, "Aesop" entry in _The Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece_
- Robert Temple, Introduction to _Aesop: The Complete Fables_ (pages xx - xxi)
Yes, the suggestion might be spurious indeed, but it's not modern in the proper sense. The idea is, as you suggested, Byzantine. So, it could be a misunderstanding, but at least it did not carry any modern racial stereotype.
Keep offering a top class material. Σε ευχαριστούμε..
Thank you!
Love your stuff AGR! But the suggestion of Aesop being Ethiopian is grossly wrong, the first suggestion of Aesop being Ethiopian is from a Byzantine scholar (Planudes in 13th century) and is based on a false correlation of his name with Ethiopia. The universal view of the ancient Greeks and Romans was that he was a slave in Samos likely of Lydian ancestry, there is no suggestion he was Ethiopian. Unfortunately this myth was promoted by Victorian and 20th century classicists with political motives and has continued to be promoted by the modern wokeists with no shred of solid evidence. Despite this hiccup, another fantastic video! Thank you for what you do! 🙌🏻🥂
We hope that not all that you took away from the episode :-)
" cыр выпал...с ним была плутовка такова!!..." басни И.А. Крылова , thnks Эзоп!!
Well done, very nice video and thoughts.
It seems that slowly, as people walk away from the light of the Gods into the neon lights of a vice-filled future, morality is slowing becoming a past reflection. What is right became "what will promote my image" to others. Nihilism is the religion of the modern age.
In fact,Darwinists must be first ones to see how important our instincts are.
🥰
Awesome video once again 🙂
Thank you!
Thank you! 😊🙏💜💜💜
❤️
The values we embrace as a culture are also evolutionary and not at all at odds with Darwinism. Our laws grow out of our need to live together. Society reflects the values of the tribe from which it originated. All our values are based upon our ability to reason. The Golden Rule, on the whole, is self-evident. Trust, though it may be betrayed, is necessary when living in a group. Evolution applies to social beliefs and laws as much as it applies to an individual. I see no contradiction in this.
Which is exactly why we spoke of "virtue" and not "values." It's an easy mistake to make, but values are very much associated with this Darwinian paradigm that we criticized. The question, however, concerning Virtue is - as it always has been - the following: is there an objective Good that humans should strive for? Is there something that is appropriate for Man *as* Man, and not just appropriate for the French, or Indians, or Muslims ..? That is the question that is denied by Darwinism, which is why his paradigm would not have fit in the ancient world.
sometimes i see some truth...sometimes i see a juu...doing what the juu do best, even when the rest just rest...sometimes i hear a spell... sometimes i see it well...and i hope other people too, someday will see the juu, doing what the juu do best....someday i wait for you, to come with me someday, and finally see the juu
Еra of total lies passing away, thnk gods))
9:25 behavior has no inherent morality ; only an objective moral standard outside natural selection ; morality is a byproduct of surviving
Is that a question? :-)
Even if morality was a practical outcome of evolution, which I'm not convinced of, it is deeply uninspiring. For cultures to thrive there must have been a very profound revelation from God / Being to inspire civilizations at least at the start before it degrades to the level of utility.
Our present culture seems to be lacking this original experience of revelation which breathes life into civilizations.
Thank you for the great content.
Actually, I couldn’t agree more. In fact, our episode on Dionysus (the one about Otto) restates Wolfram F. Otto’s position that religions are “impressions of life.” Encounters, as you called them, with Being. I would love to hear your opinion about it.
Your counter evolutionary beliefs are a product of evolution.
Ha! That’s like saying that your atheism is inspired by God.
@@AncientGreeceRevisited yes exactly
@@AncientGreeceRevisited Not at all!
@@staceykersting705 You didn't get it did you? There is a premise in these two statements which is the same: "Your disbelief in -that which you think is not real- exists because of -that which you think is not real- "
@@ioannisplatogiannis4472 Ok, maybe your logic was this curly/circuitous when u slithered out of the mire.
Hmm.
🙄