Reply
Wed 12 Jul, 2006 01:12 pm
In the fifth and sixth century before the birth of Christ, Greece was the greatest intellectual and most artistic region in the world. Its creative sculptors gave birth to wondrous marvels carved in human form. Greece was not just the master of the Mediterranean, but they were also the masters of the theater. Theatrical performances first took place in the eastern Mediterranean, on the island of the Aegean Sea and the Greek cities of the coast of Asia Minor.
Greece was the first civilization that integrated the chorus, which represents the voice of the people, the range of public opinion, and the average citizen in the play. Greek literature proved to be very influential not just to Roman civilization, but to most dominant religions of the world.
The artistic inspiration of renowned writers of the time (writers like Euripides, Ovid, Sophocles, Homer, Virgil, and others) contributed with a very unique and influential system of religious beliefs. These authors wrote stories about gods, their conflicts with humanity, and the creation of the universe. Just like today's religionists believe in the superstitious idea of an all-loving, all-powerful, and all-knowing god, a superior being, the Greeks used to believe in what we now call "Greek mythology."
There is no logical or physical evidence that validates the existence of God (or gods for that matter.) However, there is more than enough evidence that link modern religious doctrines as being just a collection of mythological tales written by ancient authors with an amalgam of archaic inspirations that have been taken seriously generations after generations.
Some of the many reasons why so many atheists don't believe in the existence of a deity are because of the following:
Because there are overwhelming evidence of parallelism between Jesus Christ and ancient characters of folklore, Jesus Christ may have not existed; when the Bible says that a mere human can't see God in his true form, Greek mythology may have even been involved; while the Bible tells of the creation of the world in its supernatural context, there are other older ancient creation stories that share the same idea; allusions in the Bible that have been taken from the Sumerian tale "The Epic of Gilgamesh" and other ancient stories, reveal that plagiarism was also employed at the time the Bible was written; and although the Bible can't explain why God blames entire generations for what Adam and Eve did, an ancient rule in Greek society might explain it.
While many Christians believe that the New Testament is the flawless word of God, they haven't realized that there are saviors in older ancient folklores that resemble Jesus Christ's holy attributes.
When I was taking classical literature back in college, there was a character in Greek mythology that caught my attention because of the overwhelming similarities he shares with Jesus Christ. I became fascinated by this character. This character is Dionysius, the Greek god of wine, partying and intoxication. I noticed how this character possesses many "dominant" elements of the Jesus Christ and similar theme in story as well. The story of Dionysius is this:
Dionysius is begotten by the main god Zeus and a virgin woman named Semele. After Dionysius grows up, he comes to Thebes, a city in Greece, northwest of Athens, to introduce a new religion. King Pentheus takes him prisoner for trying to introduce the Dionysic religion to the people of Thebes. Pentheus does not think Dionysius is a god at first; he thinks that this foreigner comes to his kingdom to corrupt the land by taking the women of the city into the mountains to engage in massive orgies. The injustice and brutality of this god is mirrored through Dionysius when he condemns Pentheus to decapitation after he reveals his godly attributes to him. Dionysius does not forgive Pentheus for his unconscious transgression, but makes him an object lesson for nonbelievers.
In many manifestations, Dionysius is a bull. He's often called "the god who is in charged of it all." He can get into any wild animal and be sacrificed. And you may ask yourselves, what is done with the sacrifice? The sacrifice is taken into the worshiper's body; the worshiper eats the flesh and drinks the blood, and the worshiper gets in a state of "entheos," which derives from the word "enthusiasm."
According to this form of ritual, god is inside the worshiper in a very literal and physical way. Does this read familiar? Yes, it is the Sacrament of the Holy Communion, which means "this is my body. This is my blood. Take them into you as part of your worship of me." This kind of ceremony venerates the god as powerful, but also has the god sacrificing himself for the worship. This translates to, "if you worship me, you will have an afterlife that is worth living."
The positive side of Dionysius is that he came to offer us wine, the means to forget about our problems. The negative side of Dionysius is that he can be extremely cruel.
Dionysius is the twice born; born of a human, born of a god. The play (The Bacchae, 406 BC) assumes that Dionysius exists, and Euripides, the cynical playwright, succeeds conveying a simple but very important message to ancient Greek society: don't play with the gods. However, Euripides never affirms that Dionysius (or any other god) is a just god. The following passage was taken from Euripides' "The Bacchae" (translated by Paul Woodruff, page 56, passage 1347) where Cadmus speaks directly to Dionysius about his "unholy" behavior that takes place after the death of his grandson Pentheus by the hands of Pentheus's mother:
"You are god, not just, an order of being. Anger does not become a god. You should not be like a human being."
(In the same way, the story of Oedipus is one of the plays that come very close to the story of Job in the Bible, and the theme quite similar. Both main characters are subjected to constant, unjust suffering from gods that don't give a rat ass about them.)
The following are some of the characteristics of saviors that apply not just to Jesus Christ, but to other ancient heroes as well, courtesy of the book "The Hero."
(1) They were killed on a cross or tree. (2) They Descended into Hell. (3) They celebrated communal meal with bread and wine which represented the savior's flesh and blood. (4) Resurrected on the third day. (5) They Ascended into Heaven to forever sit beside father god and become divine judge. (6) Betrayed for 30 pieces of silver. (7) Transfigured before followers. (8) They rode donkeys into the city. (9) Born of a virgin on December 25th. (10) Turned water into wine. (11) Healed the sick. (12) Stars appear on their births. (13) Visited by magi from the east. (14) Cast out demons. (15) Performed miracles.
Apart from Jesus Christ, these are the saviors from whom these elements came from:
Adonis, Attis, Baal, Bacchus, Baider, Beddru, Devatat, Dionysius, Hermes, Horus, Krishna, Mithras, Orpheus, Osiris, Tammuz, Thor, and Zoroaster.
The very strange concept of human beings dying after seeing God in his true form was most likely taken from Greek mythology. Exodus 19:21 quotes God giving Moses an advice, clearly informing that a man who sees god in his true form will die (no explanation given). But there is another story that takes place in Greek mythology that unveils the characteristic of a god who can't be seen in his true manifestation. This story goes by the title "Zeus and Semele." Semele is the daughter of Poseidon's grandson, Cadmus, who is the king and founder of Thebes. Semele and Zeus are lovers, despite the fact that Zeus is married to the goddess Hera. Semele gets pregnant by Zeus. When Hera learns about Zeus's infidelity, she goes to Semele's house in the form of a very old lady ("Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" is an allusion to this story). Hera, with extreme jealousy, tells Semele that Zeus isn't a god, and that he doesn't love her. Semele does not believe what the old lady tells her. Hera advises Semele to ask Zeus to reveal himself to her, to prove that he really loves her. Semele finally agrees and prays to Zeus, asking him to expose his true form to her as an act of love. While Semele sleeps in her bed at night, Zeus sneaks into her bedroom. She opens her eyes and sees him in his true form. She's engulfed in flames and dies, and Zeus is saddened by this. Right at that moment, he manages to save the fetus of his son Dionysius from the womb of Semele and plants it in his own thigh.
While the Bible explains the process of creation by simply referring God as the creator, other older mythological stories share similar idea.
Let's compare five creation stories from the most renowned ancient texts ever know to humanity. These texts are the First Book of Moses called "Genesis" (king James's translation), the Babylonian Myth of Creation (2nd millennium to first millennium BC), the Gospel according to Saint John, the Egyptian Myth of Creation (4th century BC), and Hediod's The Theagony (8th century B.C).
And the main question arises, what was in the beginning in each of the following stories of creation?
According to the book of Genesis, "in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and VOID." While in S.T. John's translation, "in the beginning was the word (logos), and the word was with God. And the same was in the beginning with God. All the things were made by him [
]." But in the Enuma Elish (Babylonian Myth of Creation) in the beginning the "skies above were not yet named nor earth below pronounced by name (logos), Apsu, the first One, their begetter and maker Tiamat, who bore them all, had mixed their waters together [
]." Meanwhile, in the Egyptian Myth of Creation, "before the land of Egypt rosed out of the waters at the beginning of the world, Ra the shinning one came into being. He was ALL-POWERFUL, and the secret of his power lay in his name (logos), which was hidden from the entire world. Having this power, he had only to name a thing and that thing came into being (logos).
And finally in Hesiod's the Theagony, "the VOID came into being, next broad-bosomed Earth, the solid and eternal home of all, and Eres [Desire], the most beautiful of the immortal gods, who in every man and every god softens the sinew and over powers the prudent purpose of the mind. Out of the void came darkness and black night, and out night came light and day [
]."
The concept of man created from the dust was first introduced by the Babylonians. They created Adam, which name means "red earth." This whole mythological concept indicates that when the blood of a god mixes with the earth, life is created or life would emerge as a consequence.
And just like in the Bible, in the "Epic of Gilgamesh," a man is created from clay; after the man is seduced by a woman, he loses his innocence, acquires wisdom, becomes like a god, turns against the gods; there's a flower that bestows eternal youth, and a serpent steals the flower from the hero; a guardian guards the Tree of Life; the gods give the hero a partner; the two main character rebel against the gods.
While the Hebrew story of "The Great Flood" conveys serious elements about the behavior of God and human beings, the Babylonian story "The Epic of Gilgamesh" carries its concepts with humongous similarities.
The likeness of these two stories is dazzling. In contrast with Noah's story, in the story of "The Great Flood" (a story within the story in the "Epic"), the main god Enlil wants to destroy the human race because humans are too noisy and the gods can't sleep. One of the gods (Ishtar) warns Utnapishtim about the flood. Utnapishtim brings down his own house and builds the ship with the help of city craftsmen and his family. Unapishtim and his people build the vessel in seven days and seven nights, and when finished they herd every known animal by pair onto the ship. As the flood continues in the world, Unapishtim sends out a series of birds, but none of them returns but one bird. After the flood is over, the ship rests on top of a mountain. Unapishtim and other survivors make sacrifices to the god Ishtar, and the gods smell the sacrifices. Enlil envies Ishatar's sacrifices and feels sorry for bringing the flood, gives Unapitshtim a necklace of pearls, promising not to bring another flood. And later on, Unapitshtim and his people become like gods.
A very ancient rule in Greek society may have inspired the authors of the Bible to establish the concept of blaming children or entire generations for the deeds made by their parents. The Bible states that everybody is a sinner because Adam and Eve "rebelled" against God and Jesus Christ came and died on the cross for such sin. But this idea of justice may have been inspired by the Greeks. There are many, many, many, many references that suggest that modern civilization and the Bible have copied or taken elements from Greek culture. These cultural aspects are known as the guest-to-host relationship supported by the main god Zeus, the judge and jury trial system, the use of choirs in for praising The Lord, and many more. In ancient Greek civilization when a person committed an unlawful act against the gods, he or she was found guilty despite whether or not he or she knew about the gravity of the deed. The motto of ancient Greek was "if you did it, you're guilty no matter what." And this obviously seemed fair for the Greeks until the time Euripides wrote and finished the Oedipus trilogy. For instance, in Oedipus the King, Oedipus kills his father, marries his mother, and fathers four children with her. The Oracle of Delphi warns Oedipus about it. Although he tries to escape his destiny, it proves futile because Zeus predestines it to happen. Similarly, the "Three Theban Plays" conveys Greece's idea of justice, which lies solely in the supremacy of the gods. Generations are hounded by the Furies (the spirits of revenge), and the consequence results in brother killing brother, father killing son, father killing daughter, son killing mother, because Tantalus (their forefather) committed a terrible sin against the gods.
There are immeasurable, logical and physical evidence that put forward the impossibility of God existence. Science can not only prove the inconsistencies and foolhardiness of religion in general, but literature and philosophy can provide with the necessary tools that are very helpful to deem religion and its counterparts as psychological state in human emotions. Although ignorance is product of our own fear of the unknown, religious people must not be afraid any longer. They need to ask questions and search for answers, not take seriously ancient books filled with contradictions and nonsense, because the truth is what matters in the end.
The entire thesis is flawed by a contention that 7th and 6th century BCE Greek texts would have influenced the authors of the Pentateuch. Applying Greek prejudices and paradigms to the New Testament might be appropriate, but suggesting it for the Torah, or Old Testament is an absurdity. There is no good reason to assume, historically or archaeologically, that there was any broad cultural exchanges between the two communities. The Pentateuch is considered to have been edited in the 5th century BCE, but the Greeks were not an influence in the middle east at that time, and the evidence is strong that the editing did not materially add to the texts which then existed. The Greeks do not become an important factor in the middle east until after the Greco-Madedonian invasion in the mid-4th century BCE.
Your timeline doesn't work.
Setanta wrote:The entire thesis is flawed by a contention that 7th and 6th century BCE Greek texts would have influenced the authors of the Pentateuch. Applying Greek prejudices and paradigms to the New Testament might be appropriate, but suggesting it for the Torah, or Old Testament is an absurdity. There is no good reason to assume, historically or archaeologically, that there was any broad cultural exchanges between the two communities. The Pentateuch is considered to have been edited in the 5th century BCE, but the Greeks were not an influence in the middle east at that time, and the evidence is strong that the editing did not materially add to the texts which then existed. The Greeks do not become an important factor in the middle east until after the Greco-Madedonian invasion in the mid-4th century BCE.
Your timeline doesn't work.
"You sound good, but what you're saying is baaad."(Like the ancient Greek apologists might have said). Be that as it may...how old is the Torah, by the way?
More Christians should read this.
Setanta,
You may be correct about the specific predominance of the Greek connection, but presumably the Greeks themselves developed their own versions of prevailing myths from surrounding cultures any of which could have influenced the writing of the bible.
fresco wrote:Setanta,
You may be correct about the specific predominance of the Greek connection, but presumably the Greeks themselves developed their own versions of prevailing myths from surrounding cultures any of which could have influenced the writing of the bible.
No, no, no. Setanta is right and I'm wrong. He knows the timeline when Greece began to influence the Hebrews. He can provide you with the exact day and year. :wink:
Jason Proudmoore wrote: ...how old is the Torah, by the way?
The oldest known fragment of the Torah dates to around 600 BCE, though it is highly probable the assemblage of books known now as the Torah pretty much in their current Judaic form, date to some 2 to 4 centuries prior to that, if not a bit earlier. In any event, somewhere around 10th to 11th centuries BCE, something very like today's Torah apparently existed, at least to some extent, in written form. It is, of course, impossible to date with any accuracy the oral traditions from which the written version derives, but there is no historic or archaeologic reason to assume the basic form and content of the Torah is significantly either more or less than roughly 3 Millenia old. The oldest credibly postulated complete-in-current-Judaic-form Torah would be the original Ptolemaic Septuagint of of the mid-4th Century BCE; though no contemporary copy exists, that work is broadly referrenced and cited, and only slightly younger copies reliably attributed and generally accepted to derive faithfully from that (written in Greek) original are known to exist. General archaeologic and historic consensus is that the Torah was fully canonized and widely known in what substantially is its current form by not later than the 5th Century BCE, deriving from a heritage known to have been at least 5 centuries old at that time. There can be little doubt the Jews of The Captivity (597- 537 BCE) brought with them to Babylon a Torah essentially indistinguishable from that known today.
"Classical rabbinic writings offer various ideas on when the entire Torah was revealed. The revelation to Moses at Mount Sinai is considered by many to be the most important revelatory event. According to datings of the text by Orthodox rabbis this occurred in 1280 BCE. Some rabbinic sources state that the entire Torah was given all at once at this event. In the maximalist view, this dictation included not only the "quotes" which appear in the text, but every word of the text itself, including phrases such as "And God spoke to Moses...", and included God telling Moses about Moses' own death and what would happen afterward [...]"
"[...] In contrast, modern historians conclude that the origin of the Torah indeed came from this time-frame, but developed in different strands, which were eventually redacted together sometime around 400 BCE, the time of Ezra the scribe. These views are accepted as correct by by Conservative, Reform and Reconstructionist Judaism. Rabbis in these denominations have developed a number of theories about God and revelation which reject a secular interpretation of the documentar hypothesis, accept that the Torah was written by Moses and later prophets under divine inspiration, and which also strive to be in accord with historical consensus."
source
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah
Jason,
Jason Proudmoore wrote:fresco wrote:Setanta,
You may be correct about the specific predominance of the Greek connection, but presumably the Greeks themselves developed their own versions of prevailing myths from surrounding cultures any of which could have influenced the writing of the bible.
No, no, no. Setanta is right and I'm wrong. He knows the timeline when Greece began to influence the Hebrews. He can provide you with the exact day and year. :wink:
Maybe I did not make myself clear. Setanta can be correct about the Greeks but aspects of your thesis can still be valid based on
general mythological transmission which also influenced the Greeks.
fresco wrote:Jason,
Jason Proudmoore wrote:fresco wrote:Setanta,
You may be correct about the specific predominance of the Greek connection, but presumably the Greeks themselves developed their own versions of prevailing myths from surrounding cultures any of which could have influenced the writing of the bible.
No, no, no. Setanta is right and I'm wrong. He knows the timeline when Greece began to influence the Hebrews. He can provide you with the exact day and year. :wink:
Maybe I did not make myself clear. Setanta can be correct about the Greeks but aspects of your thesis can still be valid based on
general mythological transmission which also influenced the Greeks.
You did make yourself clear the first time. I was just being sarcastic.
But can you explain something to me? What exactly do you mean when you say " general mythological transmission which also influenced the Greeks"?
Jason,
By "mythological transmission" I have in my mind a vague synthesis of Levi-Strauss on structuralism, Joseph Conrad on the universal nature of myths and Lakoff on communication via metaphor. I have not formed a clear thesis on this but I allude to "communicative universals" dressed up in "cultural fashions" which shift with time and location.
fresco wrote:Jason,
By "mythological transmission" I have in my mind a vague synthesis of Levi-Strauss on structuralism, Joseph Conrad on the universal nature of myths and Lakoff on communication via metaphor. I have not formed a clear thesis on this but I allude to "communicative universals" dressed up in "cultural fashions" which shift with time and location.
Yeah, but I don't think I quite get you explanation. Are you telling me that the Greeks were influenced by "mythological transmission" of other civilizations, or they were influenced by their own "mythological transmission"?
I do understand that linguistic can determine how language changes over time, and how much impact can have over an entire civilization.
Why don't you form your own thesis about the subject? I would like to know what you're truly thinking.
Jason,
OK ....gotta go to work right now but in the meantime you might Google the references I've suggested which is what I intend to do.
Jason Proudmoore wrote:fresco wrote:Setanta,
You may be correct about the specific predominance of the Greek connection, but presumably the Greeks themselves developed their own versions of prevailing myths from surrounding cultures any of which could have influenced the writing of the bible.
No, no, no. Setanta is right and I'm wrong. He knows the timeline when Greece began to influence the Hebrews. He can provide you with the exact day and year. (emoticon removed in the interest of good taste)
Timber has adequately addressed the issue of the age of the Torah. Thank you for your snottiness, you may be assured that i will no longer darken your silly thread.
Setanta wrote:
Timber has adequately addressed the issue of the age of the Torah.
Okaaaaayyy
and how's that's relevant to the idea that the Hebrews did not copy from the Greeks? Is there an useful idea there? Huh?
Setanta wrote:
Thank you for your snottiness,
You're welcome, Melvin Udall .
Setanta wrote:
You may be assured that i will no longer darken your silly thread.
Setanta, you amuse me with your extensive bravado of intellectual bull-sheet. But the funny part is that you seem to have convinced yourself that you have established a credible argument based on irrelevant information. And based on this, you may not even know what this thread is all about. So why don't you stop your barrage of ignorance and let those with great intelligence contribute to this thread? You can truly learn something here...and by the way, next time you address me, you have to make sure you're not PMSing... ok? Good.
I got a line for you, Melvin: "silly is as silly does"
Jason,
First an apology...that should have been Joseph Campbell (not Conrad).
The bones of a thesis would be that all myths are made up of a limited number of universal elements which are "dressed up" in terms of dominant cultural detail. Following Chomskys idea of universal linguistic structures, Levi-Strauss argued for universal value systems in behavioural structures which all originated from limited range of kinship possibilities. And since we have common "neural systems" so "understanding" of language, behaviour and the world in general will be in terms of common structures. Myths will reflect this commonality
Joseph Campbell turned his attention to explicating the great myths of the world's religions in terms of Jungian concept of the collective unconscious. He also popularized the key discoveries and the psychology of Jung. Campbell argued that world's mythologies, ritual practices, folk traditions, and major religions share certain symbolic themes, motifs, and patterns of behavior. Note (1) we don't have to believe in "the collective unconscious" to see that it has the essence of "universality" and (2) it is interesting that psychoanalysts were fond of using Greek myths such as Oedipus as exemplars of social relationships.
I have not been too far with Lakoff yet but he seems to add his voice to the idea of a limited number of basic metaphors (-->myths) which underlie social relationships and transactions.
So in terms of your own thesis, the Bible would clearly reflect the universal elements of myths, the narrative detail being influenced by the prevailing geopolitical forces. Since Rome was a dominant power at the time of the writing of the new testament then we can reasonably expect the narrative to reflect Greek cultural influences on Rome. "Transmission" is of dominant narrative fashion.
fresco wrote: Jason,
First an apology...that should have been Joseph Campbell (not Conrad).
Apology unnecessary but accepted
fresco wrote:
The bones of a thesis would be that all myths are made up of a limited number of universal elements which are "dressed up" in terms of dominant cultural detail.
Absolutely. I agree with you. Mythology mirrors the psychological, cultural, and emotial aspects of ancient civilizations through metaphors and symbolisms.
fresco wrote:
Following Chomskys idea of universal linguistic structures, Levi-Strauss argued for universal value systems in behavioural structures which all originated from limited range of kinship possibilities. And since we have common "neural systems" so "understanding" of language, behaviour and the world in general will be in terms of common structures. Myths will reflect this commonality
Do we have "neutral systerms" because our own culture is taken from other cultures that needs to be traced back to a common ancestor? You will have to explain this paragraph to me, Fresco.
fresco wrote:
Joseph Campbell turned his attention to explicating the great myths of the world's religions in terms of Jungian concept of the collective unconscious. He also popularized the key discoveries and the psychology of Jung. Campbell argued that world's mythologies, ritual practices, folk traditions, and major religions share certain symbolic themes, motifs, and patterns of behavior. Note (1) we don't have to believe in "the collective unconscious" to see that it has the essence of "universality" and (2) it is interesting that psychoanalysts were fond of using Greek myths such as Oedipus as exemplars of social relationships.
Since this "collective unconscious" played a major part in ancient civilizations, writers of the time couldn't bring themselves to write anything that did not relate to the supernatural influence of gods. But there was a brialliant writer (whose name escapes me somehow) who took notes of events without attributing them to these gods
and that helped in the keeping of ancient historical records with much more clarity.
I'm quiet familiar with Psychology as well. I understand that when a small boy develops a pround interest in the mother that constitutes as sexual desires toward her, the term in use here is The Oedipus Complex. And when a small girl who develops similar emotional behavior towards her father, the term used here is The Electra Complex. But why was the term "The Electra Complex" chosen since there is another character in Greek literature that explicitly reveals a girl who has more ardent and explicit desire for her father (the title of the story is "Myrrha".) opposed to Electra who cared much for her father Agamemnon, Myrrha had intense sexual desires for her father Cinyras.
fresco wrote:
I have not been too far with Lakoff yet but he seems to add his voice to the idea of a limited number of basic metaphors (-->myths) which underlie social relationships and transactions.
When you say "limited number of basic metaphors," what do you mean by it?
fresco wrote:
So in terms of your own thesis, the Bible would clearly reflect the universal elements of myths, the narrative detail being influenced by the prevailing geopolitical forces. Since Rome was a dominant power at the time of the writing of the new testament then we can reasonably expect the narrative to reflect Greek cultural influences on Rome. "Transmission" is of dominant narrative fashion.
That's exactly my point. But I have no idea how the Greeks could not have been an influence on the Hebrews. Even the name of the Latin main god (influence by Greece) and the main God of the Hebrews have similar sound in pronounciation.
Greek Latin
Zeus = Jove
Hebrew English and other languages
Yahweh = Jehova
My reference to "common neural circuitry" implies a chain of reasoning involving "common action structures" (Piagetian schema) and hence common experience of relationships with "the world" (epistemology).In general, we are far more "similar" than "different".....differences are superficial
I should perhaps withdraw my reference to Lakoff at this time because although he appears to divide metaphors into only two basic groups geared to the myths of "subjectivity" and "objectivity" it is not clear whether other delimiting universal principles are advocated. .
fresco wrote: My reference to "common neural circuitry" implies a chain of reasoning involving "common action structures" (Piagetian schema) and hence common experience of relationships with "the world" (epistemology).In general, we are far more "similar" than "different".....differences are superficial.
I should perhaps withdraw my reference to Lakoff at this time because although he appears to divide metaphors into only two basic groups geared to the myths of "subjectivity" and "objectivity" it is not clear whether other delimiting universal principles are advocated.
Okay, I know what you're saying. Human beings in general have a patter of cultural, emotional, psychological, and social behaviors that make us similar or "common" to one another in any society.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace