Page 1 of 4

Symposium Philosophicum IV

PostPosted: Sun Jan 04, 2004 10:58 pm
by Q. C. Locatus Barbatus
Salvete!

I would like to organise a new Symposium. I think almost everyone now knows what the point of these symposia is.

For those who don't, here is what our friend Draco said last time:

For those unfamiliar with the concept, here's what's it about: basically, three up to ... people join each other for a debate with a more or less fixed order of subjects, each one of them embodying a philosophical current from the ancient world. Just like Greek symposia, we centre around the wine table talking the day (and night away).
...
What I need are the following:
* A minimum of two other debaters. Applicants are accepted under this topic during the whole week. The symposium is to commence on January 18.
* Applicants should select one of the following currents: presocratic natural philosophy, pythagoreanism, heraclitanism, sophism, epicureanism, stoicism, Roman stoicism, cynicism, cyrenaeism, platonism, neo-platonism or aristoteleanism. Eclectics are also welcome. Be aware that if you are the voice of a philosophy, you should know something about it, even though you can freely interpret it.
* No two participants can take the same current, or switch currents during the debate (hmmm... that might be an idea for Symposium IV... forced switching ).



Good idea, that last one :lol: .

I'm going to do 4 things different:
1. Everyone explains his point of view. Afterwards everyone gets another chance to defend his standpoint and comment on others.
2. people of the same current are allowed, switching of current not.
3. The debates will start on the 15th of january. Philosophers are accepted until the 14th.
4. The wine will be better in the 'Domus Barbatorum!'. Grow those beards, gentleman!


All right, who's in for it?

PostPosted: Mon Jan 05, 2004 11:26 pm
by Curio Agelastus
Salve!

Great idea, I hereby register my name for the philosophical school of Scribonian Eclecticism... which of course grows out of a mixture of existentialism, stoicism, with a tiny bit of nihilism thrown in just to make everyone miserable.

**Curio throws away his razor before leaving.**

Bene vale,
Marcus Scribonius Curio Britannicus.

PostPosted: Tue Jan 06, 2004 12:51 am
by Gnaeus Dionysius Draco
Count me in. Give me whatever philosophy and I'll try to defend it. I'll have the leftovers ;).

Draco

PostPosted: Tue Jan 06, 2004 8:23 pm
by Q. C. Locatus Barbatus
The topics... well, I wanted to keep them secret, but I'll give you a hint; one of them will be 'capital punishment'

PostPosted: Tue Jan 06, 2004 9:28 pm
by Curio Agelastus
Excellent! Capital punishment, always guaranteed to get people fired up!

**Curio gets on his ranting revolutionary hat**

In anticipation of an excellent argument to come,
Marcus Scribonius Curio Britannicus.

PostPosted: Wed Jan 07, 2004 8:04 pm
by Quintus Aurelius Orcus
Salve Locate
Count me in. I will go for Platonism. What kind of topics will we get besides capital punishment?
vale
Romulus

PostPosted: Sat Jan 10, 2004 2:39 pm
by Horatius Piscinus
Salve Locate

I might be around to join. In the past I have taken the Platonist and Epicurian positions. I would prefer this time to offer views closer to my own which would be Stoicism. Oh, btw I am freshly returned from jury duty and I would be a proponent for capital punishment.

Vale optime

PostPosted: Sun Jan 11, 2004 8:03 pm
by Q. C. Locatus Barbatus
Let's not start debating ... yet! I would prefer to keep other topics secret until the debates start.. What gives me an advantage :wink:
I will be performing a cynic :wink: . Maybe a bit sarcastic en eclectic, but still a cynic.

PostPosted: Mon Jan 12, 2004 5:30 pm
by Aulus Dionysius Mencius
Salvete amici

I see that most reaction comes from the same people... Let me make a little remark about that. The different currents of Roman or Greek philosophy are known to most members, but probably not in depth so as to be able to defend one of the philosophical currents when discussing particular subjects, contemporary or not.

Would it not be a good idea to open up to everyone, whatever philosophy they would choose to defend, even though it might not be Roman? After all, we can learn about other things as well, when doing that.

It was just a thought.

Valete

PostPosted: Wed Jan 14, 2004 5:51 pm
by Q. C. Locatus Barbatus
As said, eclectics are allowed (thus almost everybody :wink: ) but to differ this from an 'ordinary' discussion on our philosophy-forum we choose here to use classical philosophies.
We have 5 philosophers:
Piscinus: Stoa
Curio: "a mixture of existentialism, stoicism, with a tiny bit of nihilism "
Orcus: Platonism
Draco: aristoteleanism
Locatus: Cynism

All right, here is our first topic: "Do we need religion?"

The order of posting (starting tomorrow, the 15th) is
1. Orcus
2. Draco
3. Piscinus
4. Locatus
5. Curio

PostPosted: Wed Jan 14, 2004 5:58 pm
by Q. C. Locatus Barbatus
**When Locatus is setting up the table and chairs he can't overlook the empty spot because of Coruncianus' absence. "A pitty he couldn't make it, but with the elections going on I can understand. It's a good fortune that master Curio made it, because otherwize we would have had too much wine."
To prepare the symposium even further, Locatus opens an amphora of excellent wine from the Provincia, so it can breath for a while before being pourred into the glasses tomorrow.
The Domus Barbatorum still is quiet, except for the rumour of the slaves still preparing the meals in the triclinium. The nicest delicatesses will be eaten the next few days.
Now only one thing is left, and that is repeating the arguments that will be used the following days. Locatus realizes he will have to prove that he really is a 'barbatus', not only by the amount of hair on his cheeks.
One last sigh before the big jump: "may the Gods bless us!" until he realizes there are none.**

PostPosted: Thu Jan 15, 2004 3:33 am
by Curio Agelastus
**Curio makes his way slowly into the domus, his face downcast until he spots the people in the room.**

ah, good to see you amici! Coruncani, I'll take an amphora of Locate's best. Multas Gratias!

**That said, Curio sits in the corner and waits for everyone elses' attempts to construct a coherent argument on this most difficult of subjects.**

:twisted:

Do we need religion?

PostPosted: Thu Jan 15, 2004 11:18 am
by Quintus Aurelius Orcus
** Romulus stands up, greets Coruncanius who has arrived late. He takes a deep breath before starting.**
Salvete

This is a big question which is hard to resolve since many people like to think that religion is the opium for the masses. Many also think that if one day Christianity is no longer a mainstream religion or has disappeared no other religion will take its place.
Personnelly i think that these people are wrong. The claims of religion being the opium for the masses has some validity but not entirly. If you have a highly organised religion like Christianity than it could be some truth into it as it has shown over the course of history. Religion has always been there with mankind and always will be there, even if we are going to live on a permanent moonbase in the 21st century, if Bush' plan for restructering Nasa and the entire space program takes place. We need religion to not only explain the unknowns in our lives (death, ghosts, etc...) but also because humans seem to have a need to believe in something that is greater than themselves to unite them. Technology can never replace religion like some people i know would like to believe to so. I think that spirituality has a greater impact on our lives now than ever before. Look at the world we are living in. To stay alive in it, we need something otherworldly, something supernatural to believe in so that we can move on in this world. Today more than ever people are searching for their own spirituality, lose from any doctrine or not.
This belief in a higher being doesn't necessarly has to be a being that created us. I recall one Hellenic pagan vision on life in general and i'm going to say it in my own words. "The Gods created the foundations for life through their divine energy that travels through the universe, from which life evolved and continue to evolve."
This shows that people still try to determine the origin of human life and life in general through either religion or acheology or both. There are so many unknowns that sometimes only religion seem to explain them or try to explain them. And this is a role that religion has played and still plays in the course of human history.
Thank you.
**Romulus sits down as he exhales and inhales to relax himself. He's glad that he has finished speaking. Going in first is always difficult. Now he has to wait for the others to speak. He's anxious to hear what the others have to say about the current topic. **

PostPosted: Sat Jan 17, 2004 4:00 pm
by Q. C. Locatus Barbatus
I'll keep my comment for later...

Your turn, Draco!

PostPosted: Mon Jan 19, 2004 8:16 pm
by Gnaeus Dionysius Draco
*Draco stands up from the symposying° crowd, a wee bit tipsy but still sharp enough to correct anyone's wrong use of the vocative case yes you Curio!*

Well, religion.

Do we need it? First define what a "need" is. We don't "need" to live. Needs are consequences of dispositions. Most people are disposed, determined even, to live. So they need water, food, clothing and in the vast majority of cases, good company in the form of friends, spouses, family or animals.

Is religion a necessity to live? No, it's not. There are people who are capable of living stable, ordinary lives without the presence of religion.

However, when people are confronted with crises or extreme situations, which happens every so often in a human life, they begin to ponder. Deaths, births, war, revolution, marriage... they are all situations that make most people think about their life. Some will think only superficially and might turn to the majority religion that is available in their community. Others turn to philosophy and some turn to sects or cults.

Religion can put meaning in one's life. It has been proven that people who have some sort of faith usually live longer. This probably has to do with the fact that they have hope or a more positive outlook on life whereas fervent atheists tend to be more pessimistic about the future of themselves and the world in general. However, religion can also be a dangerous tool. In the hands of malignant individuals it cannot only become opium for the masses but it can also become the catalyst of atrocities.

So do we NEED religion? NO, we don't need religion. But can it be useful? Yes, it can. Like any tool can be useful if they are used for the right reasons and by the right people.

*Draco sits down*

PostPosted: Tue Jan 20, 2004 2:52 am
by Curio Agelastus
**Curio stands up and heckles the second speaker**

"Great speech! I'll reserve comment for now, on all but one part. In what way was my use of the vocative wrong? I don't deny it, but I need to know how it was wrong if I am to avoid making the same mistake again - indeed that was an unusually vague inquisition there, amice!"

:P

PostPosted: Tue Jan 20, 2004 12:16 pm
by Gnaeus Dionysius Draco
You wrote something along the lines of "Locate's wine". Unless you were trying to mix up an English genitive and a Latin vocative, I would consider this incorrect. You can say: "Locate, are you coming over to my house?" but you can't say "Locate is coming over to my house" because the vocative means Locatus is being personally addressed.

Voilà, that was all, actually 8).

Draco

PostPosted: Tue Jan 20, 2004 6:55 pm
by Q. C. Locatus Barbatus
*A little drunk girlish laugh is heard*

"I will comment on this later!"

:lol:

PostPosted: Tue Jan 20, 2004 8:41 pm
by Quintus Aurelius Orcus
Curio is correct when saying that Draco's post was a speech. It was a good speech.
I like the rest will reserve my comments for later. Nice job Draco. It almost read like a speech of a "real" politician.

PostPosted: Wed Jan 21, 2004 5:09 pm
by Q. C. Locatus Barbatus
True, and I'll say why later...

Piscine, your turn!