Gorit Maqueda

What I tried to convey (perhaps with little success) is that, for me, it makes sense to judge ancient people's actions and thoughts, but perhaps not ancient people themselves.

Juma

The world isnt fair: i didnt say it is possible to actually find the best standard. But you should try. "Everybody else thinks so" is never an excuse.

And maybe this discussion really is a fruit of oversimplification: there has never been a "mores of the time". Some ideas has come and gone, but I dont the individual moral landscape has changed that much over time.

I do beleive that humans should be judged after what they do of their own will, their past and surroundings is never an excuse.

aa5874

How in the world can you divorce people's action from the very people who acted?

The Holocaust is a perfect example of the need to make judgment on people who carried certain actions in the past.

spin

Gosh!

We judge by standards we cannot find. That's meaningful.

If we cut the crapping on, you'll eventually admit that we judge by the standards we find suitable from the present day. We try to discern what we consider now as the best possible standards. Yeah, well, really, that you should think of for the available choices of any given era.

You aren't saying anything meaningful thus far, other than that you cannot separate yourself from your baggage of the moment. These best standards are relative to now. Your best standards that you can't actually find are the fruit of an analysis now. Just as those people in the past tried to do the same, judging from the best standards that they could perceive.

This all comes down to the standards discernible in any particular age. You must judge the period by its standards. Until that can be understood as the basis for saying anything meaningful about the past, you won't be speaking about the past, but some invention of your own desire.

spin

I doubt that it's a matter of anyone declining. I think it's more that you can't find anyone to serve the subpoena.

spin

I don't see how an internal squabble is any more helpful.

That is a "crime" according to your current standards.

Whose talking about cutting him some slack? I'm telling you it is rather meaningless to judge a person of a particular past by standards other than those s/he was subject to.

So we can forget about Augustine. You have a beef with the church.

Strangely enough, the church has performed an interesting act of changing with the times though never admitting to it. The church reacts to different things at different times as it often tacitly absorbs what it had reacted to earlier. The church is reactionary by nature, but is different one era from another. The church has to run very fast just to appear to stand still. Just as the church changes, so do the standards that people judge by. Those standards reflect the era in which they are used.

Gorit Maqueda

Ancient people.
For me, my grandfather is not ancient people.
Even Lincoln is almost yesterday by European standards.
But Augustine...

Juma

Seems that you have a very limited view on what can be meaningful.
If you want to understand the mechanism in the roman society then you must take into consideration the standards of that time.

That doesnt change that cruelty is always cruelty.

spin

You could be right, but at least I have a basis for apprehending meaning.

Straw men are always fun.

So, is chopping your enemy's head off with one clean blow cruel?

Juma

Why do you ask that?
My answer that iis tiat it is. But I cant really see what it has to do with this discussion.