Eivind » posted to Eivind and booklines
"Greeks never envisaged the future as technologically different from the present. There was no Greek science fiction. When they wanted to imagine societies operating on different principles, they evoked either the deep past or distant lands (think of Euhemerus and his journey to the imaginary Panchaea). As a result there was no sense of a battle between science and religion to steer society’s future."
Battling the Gods: Atheism in the Ancient World, by Tim Whitmarsh ‎· Eivind
Moar pls :) ‎· haypat
this made some waves in classics circles recently, dude was a second sophistic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Sophistic) specialist, so this book caught many by surprise. haven't read it yet but it can be found on libgen for a taste. ‎· o iş noldu?
I'll finish the book tonight. It's been an interesting read :) ‎· Eivind
There was no science as something trying to describe the world as a whole, so there was no conflict with the wardens of the then-current world representation. Geometry or even mechanics were not going to dethrone Zeus. ‎· 9000
Dethroning Olympians works a bit differently than how one goes about refuting the big gods of the Abrahamic monotheisms. It wouldn't be a matter of coming up with a godless model of the universe. Mechanics might do it, actually. At least in the Homeric model. ‎· Eivind
I haven t seen the book. What does the author do with things like thucydides' awarenesd of the difference between the greece of homer and that of his own time or aristotle dreaing about automata? ‎· mentegatto
There's a segment about Thucydides, but the focus is signs of disbelief in his writing. Like when he's mocking people for bending oracles to make them fit how things turned out, or when they give gods credit/blame for battle outcomes. I am not sure Aristotle has been mentioned at all. ‎· Eivind