The development of language, or more particularly rehtoric, began in the 5th century BCE in Greece. The development of the sophists, or sophistai meaning ‘one who possesses wisdom’ in Greek, were born from an exigent political need found in property rights. At the time, all previous nationalized land had been given back to the people. As such, there was a need for Greek denizens to argue their claims in ‘court.’ Since they did not have a working class of lawyers, in the modern sense of the word, there appeared a group of learned men, or sophists, who would travel from town to town, primarily in Athens, and argue cases.

The most prominent element in the Sophist philosophy was skepticism. The skepticism of the Sophists took various forms: phenomenalism, the belief that we can only know ideas present in our mind, but not the objects of perception outside our mind (so that it is useless to make a definitive statement about anything outside our own mind); empiricism, the doctrine that experience, particularly of the senses, is our only source of knowledge; and above all, relativism, the theory that truth has no independent absolute existence, but is dependent upon the individual and the particular situation in which one finds oneself.

The relativity of truth was the basis of Protagoras’s, often considered the first Sophist, rhetorical teaching. He trained his students to argue on both sides of a question because he believed that the whole truth could not be limited to just one side of a question. Therefore, he taught his students to praise and blame the same things and to strengthen the weaker argument so that it might appear the stronger. These techniques are based on the belief that truth is relative to the individual. Arguments on both sides of a question are equally true because those debating a question can only truly know those things which exist in their own mind and therefore cannot make a definitely true statement about objective realities outside the mind (phenomenalism). Truth is what it appears to be to the individual. As Protagoras said: “Man is the measure of all things, of the things that are, that they are and of things that are not, that they are not”. Since it is not possible to know what is absolutely true, there is only one standard left by which to determine correct action: the standard of advantage (interest, expediency). If an action is advantageous to the individual, then it is good. This idea was sometimes employed by the unscrupulous to justify morally questionable behavior, but Protagoras apparently was opposed to an indiscriminate use of this principle. His belief in the relativity of truth did not prevent him from believing that in making moral decisions one can still distinguish between an action which is morally better and one that is morally worse (Core Studies 1, Roger Dunkle, Brooklyn College).

In the next lecture we will cover Plato, Aristotle and the development of the Roman model for teaching. Additionally, considering there are more learned scholars then myself, just ask my previous professors, I shall make extensive use of other scholars work and take full credit for such erudite historical contributions thus unseen on the internet.

Instructor:

T. (Sick) Brophy.

Welcome to Language and Religion. In this class we will be reviewing the impact of language, specifically the translation of language as it relates to the development of Catholic Church ideology and belief. Although this is a large topic to cover, this class will be part of a large series of classes each building off the other.

Class Objective:

1. Discuss the development of oral tradition as used in relating religious traditions and general synopsis of the development of language as used in rhetoric or argument by the ancient Greeks.
2. Development of Roman adoption and adaptation of Greek ideas.
3. Develop a timeline and relevant historical events, which impacted the authors of the New Testament Gospels.
4. Constantine and the New Church Era.

Class Structure

Each class objective will be covered in a three lecture series:

Classes 1-6 Discuss oral tradition as used in the dissemination of ideas. The primary focal point of these classes will discuss the development of argument as used by the Greeks circa third century BC and expounded by the Sophists and arguments among classical Greek philosophers such as Plato, Pythagurus, Aristotle, etc. At the end of this series the lectures will discuss Roman adaptation of Greek knowledge and their implementation of it towards education and thought.
Classes 7-12 Cover the development of the Christian faith after Jesus’ passion and the historical context within which the authors of the Gospels found themselves and potential impacts this had on writing style and development of faith. We will conclude this series with the Roman Emperor Constantine and his adoption of Christianity as the formal religion of the empire
Class 13 Will be deicated to answering any questions you may have following Classes 1-12. Feel free to post any questions you may have in the class comments area and they will be covered in Class 13. I will also be providing links to further resources you can use to learn about the history which will be covered in this secures of lectures. If you know of any great resources for the program being covered just post them in class comments and we will discuss them in Class 13.

Course Overview:

12 classes,
Classes 1-6: Oral Tradition, Greek and Roman Thought
Classes 7-12: Gospel writings and Constantine
Class 13: Final review and discussion.

Conclusion.

The goal of this class will be to provide a basic knowledge of the development of language and history as used in the development of the dogma of the Catholic Church. After completeing this course you will be able to: a) basic understanding of language and its development. b) An understanding of Greek thought and its impact on Roman belief and civic structure. c) Have a brief history of the Gospels and understand the history in which they were written.

Although I do suffer from involuntary fits of narcassitic rage and would love nothing more that to shamelessly self promote the nation’s sickest and most innovative SlightlySick Gear t-shirt and cothing line, I do have other more ethereal interests. One such interest is the development of faith and religion as redacted and modified by the development of language.

I consider most of this is in response to my Jesuit high school upbringing, and the rather long stretch of adolescent time without seeing a woman as a result of said Jesuit training (it was an all male school). Although since then I have had the honor of paying a few women a couple of bucks to watch them breast feed (thank you Dave Atell for that quip), nonetheless the questions posited into my youthful mind still pervade much of my existence to date.

I am by no means a savannt in such areas, but I do have a certain innate curiosity about faith, or perhaps the language of faith, which has in turn fueled my rather obssesive penchant for reading books which contain both faith filled, athiestic, and agnostic undertones. Some of my favorite books include: Constantine’s Sword by James Carroll, Jesus by Malcom Muggerridge, Mere Christianity by CS Lewis, Got is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens, Barabbas by Par Lagervist and Dostoyesvsky, even if the Russian dynamo couldn’t possibly write a book less than 600 pages, just to name of few. The culmination of reading all these books, in light of the development of religion, and religion’s response to various period crisis, has ignited a more passionate review of language development, which in part, stems from the many latin, greek and spanish lessons I was subjected to as a youth.

Although I cannot remember verbatim this quote which comes to mind, “homosapiens are the only species which develops symbols and signs to which they assign meaning and invest their passions, only to forget why the original symbol was created.” Language, for me, outside of its more staid modern definition of defining others by dialect, speech, and or other mode of expression given to a specific region; is the entire basis upon which we, as humans, relate to one another. If one reads the bible, Babel is a perfect example of this in which God disperssed humans across the world and gave them differing dialects and languages which would, in turn, confuse us for years to come.

The penultimate question, at least for me, considering the multitude of languages which aided in the development of the bible, especially the Christian bible (which in its original formulations was in Koine or common Greek (Septuagint) and Aramaic the language of Eastern diplomacy), what ideas or thoughts could not be conveyed due to lapses and changes, not only in language, but also in style and meter of prose. Let me help illuminate my point by way of example, the word ‘cool’ at least in the 1940’s/’50s lexicon, was to reference temperature, i.e. it is cool out today. Today’s modern verbiage uses cool in much the same way we at SlightlySick have redefined the word ’sick.’ Of more common use Shakespeare relied heavily on the Geneva bible, referenced below, which in turn pervaded public thought and discourse, even to this day.

In addition, much of the modern bible is the development and creation of the King James Bible in response to the Geneva Bible written I might add by Proestants, in response to what they felt were Catholic use of sacred texts to validate their authority. Although the original forms of the bible tried to separate themselves from the Vulgate and/or latin version of the bible which was translated from Greek, I am still left wanting as to true or definite meaning.

In the end, faith begins where both reason and language end, for it is impossible to illuminate the infinite with a finite language. Nonetheless by studying the modus operendi for particular people’s language translation and thought process, it does illuminate the frame of mind of our original scholars and thus can enhance our own search for understanding.

Or perhaps we all have it wrong and Monty Phython is right in there wonderful dialogue of the Sermon of the Mount in the Life of Brian:

Although this post has strayed wildly from our previous posts, I would enjoy a civil discussion from other people’s experience and attitudes towards faith, as seen in the light of language development and its limitations. Please feel free to draw upon your experiences from outside the confines of religous and/or other such upbringing and reading. But do be respectful of others ruminations, and although we may scoff or protest, there is as Herbert Spencer wrote, and a paraphrase, ‘a bar against all arguments which will forever keep a man in permanent ignorance and that is contempt prior to investigation.”